Recently, the Chennai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in the case of ACIT v. TVS Motors Co. Ltd. [2010] 36 DTR 89 (Chennai) held that, a composite scheme of arrangement cannot be denied the tax benefits if all the conditions for amalgamation under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are fulfilled.
ITO vs. M/s Prasad Production (ITAT Chennai Special Bench). The assessee made a remittance to IMAX Canada towards technology transfer fee without deduction of tax at source. The AO took the view that the consideration was “fees for technical services” u/s 9 (1)(vii) and that tax ought to have been deducted at source as per Transmission Corporation 239 ITR 587 (SC). He accordingly held the assessee to be an “assessee-in-default” u/s 201 though the CIT(A) reversed the same.
Prasad Production Ltd. (“Taxpayer”) was awarded a contract by the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh to establish IMAX Theatre at Hyderabad. The Taxpayer entered into an agreement with IMAX Ltd., Canada for purchase of the system (which included supply of equipment, installation, testing and initial training) as well as transfer of technology. As per the agreement, the total consideration for purchase of the system was US$ 1,365,000 and US$ 950,000 was towards technology transfer fee.
Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Income Tax – Section 80IB(2)(iv) – Determination of whether a business activity of “assembling” amounts to manufacturing for relief u/s 80IB – whether employment of temporary workers is enough to claim the relief – YES
The facts in brief leading to the controversy are that unaccounted commission earned by the assessee was unearthed during the search. In his return of income, the assessee claimed expenditure incurred to earn the said income which the Assessing Officer disallowed under sec.69C of the Act. The CIT (A) deleted this disallowance by observing that sec.69C along with the pro
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
The issue before the SB was that, while computing the amounts eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non-eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking)
In respect of AY 2003-04, the assessee had an unit in Chennai which was engaged in software development and whose profits were eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The assessee had another unit in Delhi which was engaged in trading and had suffered a loss. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for a deduction u/s 10A
The second proviso to section 10B(1) cannot be construed to be a qualifying condition for claiming deduction. It just permits additional benefit which may be allowed provided domestic profit is within the limit prescribed in the proviso. On the panoply of this proviso deduction cannot be denied. The assessee would be entitled to partial deduction proportionately on export turnover in view of the provisions of sub-section(4) of section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Just because Satellite was owned by another company, would not change the colour of payment, which would remain a `royalty’.
