Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (TDS) – in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is made only for the purpose a specific act, i.e. power transmission in this case, and even if an asset is used in the said process, the payment cannot be said to be for the use of an asset. When control of the asset (transmission lines in the present case) always remains with the PGCIL, any payment made to the PGCIL for transmission of power on the transmission lines and infrastructure owned controlled and in physical possession of PGCIL can be said to have been made for ‘the use of’ these transmission lines or other related infrastructure.
M/s Diamond Tool Industries Vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Gauhati High Court in the case of Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (supra) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) has held that Central Excise Duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly the refund of the Central Excise duty also had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central Excise Duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity.
Essar Investments Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – On the identical facts the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 & 2000-2002 vide para 23 of the order dated 9.7.2008 has held that the assessee had advanced the loans to the group concerns for its business purpose, in such a case, interest on such advances cannot be disallowed. The similar view has been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 5083 & 5642/M/2007 for AYs 2000-2001 & 2003-2004 dated 11.12.2009.
Sujata Rajendra Nikalje Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – We find force in the alternate contention of the assesee. Admittedly, the assessee was in custody from 25th December, 2005 till 17th September, 2007 during which the assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were framed. Although the assessee was given opportunity during remand proceedings, we find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that due to her depressed mental state of affairs for being behind bars for above 2 years, the assessee was not in a position to substantiate her case and, therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues for both the assessment years to the file of the A.O. for denovo assessment. The A.O. shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
ACIT Vs. M/s Reliance Land Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee proved that interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. (7% interest on Rs. 538 crores) amounting to Rs. 2,78,58,082/- has been received from Swan Consultants (P) Ltd. on account of loan advanced to them. Further, the loan was taken on 28.4.2006 and given also on 28.4.2006. Similarly, interest paid to Reliance Capital Ltd. amounting to Rs. 5,60,54,795/- on account of loan of Rs. 300 crores @ 11% interest taken on 29.1.2007 has been given to Swan Consultants P. Ltd. on the same day on which equal amount of interest has been received from them.
Novel Inc. Vs. DDIT (Intl. taxation) – The proceeds from sale of Software to Distributors, without granting the right to duplicate / alter / modify the software, cannot be construed as ‘Royalty’, regardless of the fact that the taxpayer choose to describe its product as ‘intellectual value’ in its invoices. The Tribunal held that if the creator himself exploits his work by converting it into end products ready for use and transfers the right to use such end products to another but not further the right to copy the same, it would be a case of transfer of a copyrighted product.
De Beers UK Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The Tribunal held that the payment for VAS has to be considered partly as royalty under para 3(a) of Article 13 of the tax treaty being the payment for various types of information of commercial nature acquired based on past experience and partly as FTS under para 4(a) of Article 13 of the tax treaty being the payment attributable to the services rendered by the Key Account Manager (KAM) or through workshops, etc. which were ancillary and subsidiary to application or enjoyment of the information or being payment for marketing consultancy services which were ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of brand.
. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
ACIT Vs. Shri Ravindrakumar Toshniwal (ITAT Mumbai)- – Tribunal in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia wherein it has been held that off market transaction is not a unlawful activity and there is no relevance in seeking details of share transaction from stock exchange when the sale was not on stock exchange and relying upon it for making addition.
DCIT vs. Eversmile Construction Co Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT [(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)] has held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on tax liability of the assessee notwithstanding the fact that it was not raised before the learned CIT(A).
