Classic Shares & Stock Brooking Services Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable.
Taurian Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ad. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In the case of Haji Aziz And Abdul Shakoor Brothers (supra) it was held that fine paid to the Custom Authorities was in fact penalty u/s 167 (8C) of the Customs Act. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such penalties which are incurred by an assessee in proceedings launched against him for an infraction of the law cannot be called commercial losses incurred by an assessee in carrying on his business. In the case of Rohit Pulp & Paper Industries (supra) the Deputy Collector of Customs had ordered confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order.
ITO, TDS-II Vs The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT) – The short controversy is that the assessee did not quote PAN number in TDS ereturn while uploading the e-returns. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause. What we find that as admittedly the new system of filing e-TDS-returns is introduced. Being a new system, having a some problems with software and for that the assesse bank can not be held responsible. No where is denied by the A.O. that as claimed by the Assesse, there system error. In our opinion, it is a reasonable cause for not quoting PAN numbers in e-return of TDS. We further find that the assessee thereafter immediately filed the revised TDS ereturn and also have furnished Form no.60. n our opinion, there is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not quoting the PAN numbers in e-TDS return and no penalty is leviable. Accordingly, all the grounds in the revenue’s appeal are dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assesse is allowed and we delete the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT (A).
Baker Technical Services Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – As per order of the Ld. CIT (A) the appeal was posted for hearing on 8.02.2010. On the said date, the assessee sought the adjournment. Again the appeal was fixed on 20th February 2010. But it appears that there was no response from the assessee. Nowhere, it is mentioned by the Ld. CIT (A) that notice was duly served on the assessee fixing the date of hearing. Otherwise also, no prejudice should have been caused to the Ld. CIT (A) if one opportunity would have been given. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) has disposed off the appeal in undue haste. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the entire matter to his file for fresh adjudication as per law after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
ACIT (E) Vs. India ITME Society (ITAT Mumbai) Since the assessee has not maintained separate books of account for these activities of providing other services and charging with a margin, the notification issued u/s 10(23C)(iv) will not applicable in respect of such income from other activities and therefore, the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) is not available in respect of the income earned by the assessee from the activity of providing power installation, electricity, telephone facilities, compressed air hire etc. etc. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption with respect to the receipt and accumulations from the holding and organizing the exhibition and hence, the income from other activities in providing other services by charging huge profit has to be taxed as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed.
ADIT (IT) Vs. Warner Brother Pictures Inc (ITAT Mumbai)- even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently, Agency PE provisions are not applicable to the assessee company.
DCIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Camelot was a 100% subsidiary of the appellant and the appellant had deep business interest in Camelot. The main reason for setting up Camelot was to manufacture toothbrushes exclusively for the appellant. The appellant was relying upon Camelot for manufacturing of toothbrushes to be traded by the appellant. The entire investment in Camelot was made by the appellant only as a measure of commercial expediency to further its business objectives and were primarily related to the business operations of the appellant. At no point of time, the investments in Camelot was made or held with an intention to realize any enhancement in value thereof over a period of time or to earn dividend income. Rather the investments were made only to separately house an integral part of the business activity of the appellant, which essentially operated as a single unified business.
ACIT Vs. SKF Bearings India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – Sections 54EC and 74 refer to capital gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset and not with respect to a short term capital asset. Further, section 112(1 )(b)(i) and (ii) specifically refers to only long term capital gains. Hence, where section 50 by a legal fiction, deems the income earned from a depreciable asset as short term capital gain, applying the tax rate specified for long term capital gains in section 112(1) would not arise. On a plain reading of section 50, the excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset. The beneficial rate of tax @ 20% would not be applicable to capital gains arising on transfer of depreciable asset even though the asset was held for more than thirty-six months
The core issue that we are really required to adjudicate in this appeal is whether or not, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee can be said to have a permanent establishment (PE)1 in India, and, if it is held that the assessee indeed has a permanent establishment in India how much profits can be taxed as being attributable to such a permanent establishment.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Trading in Electric Motors, Fans, Laboratory equipments and generation of Wind Power filed return declaring total income at Rs. 11,60,151/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was interalia observed by the AO that the assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs. 12,840/- being exempt u/s 10(34)
