Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. CIT (Madras HC) – In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Electricity Board (cited supra), after passing of an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act gets merged with the said order under Section 143(3) of the Act and the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act does not any more independently survive for rectification by the Assessing Authority under Section 154 of the Act.
Infotech Software Dealers Association (hereinafter referred to as “the ISODA” or the “Petitioner”) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act having its headquarters at Mumbai. Members of ISODA are engaged in the business of reselling of computer software products falling under 3 categories – (i) Shrink Wrap Software; (ii) Multiple User Software/Paper License and (iii) Internet Download. The ISODA filed the subject petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 65(1 05)(zzzze) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (as amended by Finance No.2 Act of 2009) (hereinafter referred as “the Finance Act”) in relation to the business activities of the members of the Petitioner as: • Null and void; • Ultra vires and unconstitutional of the provisions of Article 245, Entries 92C and 97 of List-I, Entry 54 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; and • Contrary to provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions raised the following three questions: • Whether software is goods? • Whether supply of software pursuant to the End User License Agreement is to be treated as sale or service? • Whether the Parliament has the legislative competency to levy Service Tax on Information Technology Software Services?
The High Court held that Section 65(105)(zzzze) does not relate to goods as such as it imposes service tax on services provided or to be provided in relation to information technology software. The same can be brought under Entry 97 of List 1 of Schedule VII which relates to the residuary powers of the Parliament to make laws. Thus, the Parliament has the legislative competence to make laws relating to it.
The law of limitation has been enacted only to give a finality to a proceedings and not destroy statutory appellate remedy. The Court can condone the delay in spite of the fact the delay is very enormous-, if the Court is satisfied, with the reason stated in the affidavit. At the same time, even a short spell of delay may stare at the appellant if the appellant is not able to give a cogent acceptable reason for the delay.
Where the assessee-proprietory concern got merged with a company and the credit entries in the name of the company in the accounts of the assessee came to be assessed to tax at the hands of the company, there could not be a further liability fastened on the proprietary concern which had already suffered tax in the hands of the company with which the proprietary concern got merged.
In all fairness, while hearing an appeal from the original authority, the CIT, the CBDT who is the appellate authority cannot deny the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioning assessee at whose instance the impugned order came to be passed and which has become the subject-matter of appeal before the CBDT.
It is no doubt true that as per section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, when the assessee goes before the authority concerned on transfer pricing, an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the assessee. As far as the present case is concerned, the notice dated 25-8-2009 was sent by the Transfer Pricing Officer intimating the date of personal hearing on 4-9-2009, on which date the petitioner was to file its reply. Admittedly
It is not in dispute that the activity of the assessee is of property promoter. As the property in the hands of the assessee was treated as business asset and not as capital asset, there is no question of invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Section 50C of the Act pertains to determining the full value of the capital asset. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA) deals with tax holidays for eligible businesses. Sub-section (5) of section 80-IA of ITA provides that for the purpose of determining the quantum of the deduction, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the taxpayer. This deeming fiction is applicable from the initial assessment year i.e. the first year of claim of the deduction.
Under the Indian Tax Laws (ITL), a taxpayer carrying on the business of generation of electricity, which qualifies for income-linked deduction (eligible business), can opt to claim such deduction for a period of 10 assessment years (AYs) out of 15 years, beginning from the year in which the taxpayer commences generation of power.
