ACIT Vs. L&T Western India Toll Bridge Ltd (ITAT Chennai)- It was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums.
In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of Rs.5,11,494/-. The tax effect here is also less than Rs.3 lakhs and even below Rs.2 lakhs. we are of the opinion that Circular No.3/2011 of CBDT will apply and due to low tax effect, the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. There is no case for the Revenue that the issue involved has got any cascading effect over other years or on the assessments of any group of which assessee is a part.
.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai) – The ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming that cash assistance is taxable in the hands of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) himself has allowed the claim of the assessee for the earlier assessment year and he is taking inconsistent view as far as the impugned assessment year is concerned. It is also the grievance of the assessee that the alternative plea that cash assistance is not to be taxed under the head “business” as it represented a capital asset which had no cost.
V.Swaminatha Iyer & Co. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) – On going through the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal placed before us, we find that the assessee is aggrieved on two counts namely disallowance of interest to loan creditors and disallowance of salary paid to lady partners. The issue of interest to loan creditors is specifically reflected only in the statement of facts whereas the issue of salary paid to lady partners is reflected only in the grounds of appeal. We are also constrained to state that the amount of interest agitated by the assessee as interest to loan creditors at Rs. 49,534/- is not confirmed as the correct amount at the time of hearing. As a lot of such missing links are here, we remit back the file to assessing authority for de novo consideration after hearing the assessee. The issues agitated may be re-examined by the assessing authority specially taking into consideration the fact that loan credits are brought down from earlier assessment year on which the assessee has been claiming interest in a consistent manner.
A reading of the provisions of section 80-IA(10) shows that when business transaction is so arranged that it produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits, which might be accepted to arise in such eligible business, then the Assessing Officer is empowered to restrict the allowance of deduction under section 80-IA to the amount of profit, which might reasonably be deemed to have been derived from the normal business transactions.
DCIT v. ABAQUS Engineering Pvt Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Recently, the Chennai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ABAQUS Engineering Pvt Ltdheld that the payment made for supply of software is not ‘royalty’ since it is ‘copyrighted software’ and not copyright in the software. The Chennai Tribunal relied on the Mumbai Tribunal’s decision of TII Telecom International Pvt Ltd and Delhi Tribunal Special Bench decision of Motorola Inc, where it has been held that the supply of software does not amount to any transfer of copyright but only transfer of copyrighted article.
L&T Transportation Infrastructure Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)- Roadside amenities cannot be treated as ‘infrastructure facility’ for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?
Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Tribunal emphasised that the essence of a CUP method is a free comparison of the variables in uncontrolled conditions. However, citing practical manifestation, the Tribunal agreed that a comparison of controlled prices may be accepted. This may depend on the facts of the case. Further, the Tribunal stated that the facts in this case did not merit a special reason to rely on comparison based on controlled prices. Hence, the application of the CUP method based on comparison against uncontrolled prices was confirmed by the Tribunal.
ACIT Vs West Asia Maritime Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) (Third Member)- The contention of the assessing authority that the ship was excluded from the ambit of tonnage tax scheme mainly for the reason that the ship is rendering services only between Indian ports, which would have also been rendered on land by road or rail, is too far-fetched.
