M/s Varun Developers Vs CIT, Bangalore (Karnataka High Court)- In view of the submission made to consider whether the calculations have to be made on completion of the project after registering the plots in favour of the intended purchasers or customers, who had invested the amount from time to time, or as and when the amount is paid and accrued to the benefit of the petitioner for each assessment years and, also to consider the deductions available as per Section. 801B(10) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer by quashing the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Revisional Authority. All the contentions are left open to be urged, Petitions are accordingly allowed.
CIT Vs M/s Sami Labs Limited – Karnatka High Court (Dated: February 14, 2011)- Income tax – Section 115JAA, 263, 244A – Whether MAT credit is to be first adjusted and then TDS and pre paid taxed should be set off against the total tax liability – Whether assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A against the MAT credit. – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
It is to be noted here that the claim made by the assessee under section 158-A will not however preclude the Assessing Officer from making an order disposing of the relevant case without awaiting the final decision on the question of law in other case. When the decision on the question of law becomes final, it shall be applied to the relevant case and the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority shall amend the order earlier passed, if necessary in view of the final decision on the question of law in the other case.
Two flats purchased by the assessee were situated side by side. Builder also stated that he had effected modifications to the flats to make them one unit by opening the door in between the two apartments. The fact that the assessee could not have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could not have narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed could not make any difference.
M/s Sasken Communication v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors (Karnataka High Court) The contract for development of software in question are not works contract but contract for service simplicitor and hence not liable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contract for development of software is not a composite contract consisting of a contract of service and contract for sale of goods. It is an indivisible contract of service only.
The contract may be in writing or it may be oral but the liability to pay tax arises when the recipient of the said amount receives payment in excess of Rs. 20,000.
The Tribunal was correct in holding that consideration paid by the assessee to certain American Company for providing technicians to train assessee’s personnel in manufacturing, testing, inspection and quality control of its products and to impart know-how and technical data and suggest improvements thereto, did not fall under section 35AB, but was entitled to total relief under section 37(1)
In fact, recording of reasons ensures that the authority has applied its mind to the case and the reasons that compelled the authority to take a decision in question are germane to the contents and scope of power vested in the authority. Therefore, giving of reasons by an adjudicating body goes to the very root of the process of decision-making or adjudication and therefore, it is not just a formal requirement but indicates that the adjudicatory body has applied its own mind to the merits of the case and also to avoid any doubt as to any perfunctory approach.
Where assessee was not engaged in collecting and receiving goods of the foreign principal but it was engaged in procuring the customers for the foreign principal, the nature of activities of the assessee cannot be brought within the scope of definition of `C and F Agent’ under section 65(25)
The respondent is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (‘EOU’ for short) engaged in the manufacture of parts of agricultural and farm equipment which are chargeable to ‘Nil’ rate of duty under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff Act). The respondent filed three refund claims with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, being the unutilised credit availed by the respondent in respect of certain inputs used in the manufacture and export of their final product.
