ADIT v ACM Shipping India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – The taxpayer was wholly or almost wholly securing orders only for ACM UK. The freight invoice issued by the carriers show that the commission was paid by the Indian exporter to the taxpayer directly on behalf of the carriers. Further, the taxpayer was paying 50 percent of the commission earned to ACM UK for their services in getting contract with the ship owners and the customers. There is no evidence to show that the commission paid by the taxpayer was for services rendered outside India.
HCC-L&T Purulia Joint Venture v JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case we are concerned with A.Y 2006-07 and, therefore, payments by a subcontractor to sub sub-contractor would not be covered under the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act. We therefore, agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on the part of the assessee in respect of payments made to sub sub-contractors. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) is directed to be deleted.
ACIT v Mansih Dutt (ITAT, Mumbai )- Assessee had utilized the services of dubbing studio Ninety Degrees by using their equipments as well as the artists who were working for Studio Ninety Degrees. The assessee had thus carried out the work of dubbing by engaging services and the same was of the nature of getting work done through a subcontractor. The findings of the CIT(A) in this regard are not in challenge before us. In such circumstances we are of the view that the provisions of section 194C were applicable and the assessee has rightly deducted tax at source at 2 per cent treating the payment as a payment to sub-contractor for carrying out a work.
ITO vs. Shanaya Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai) – Merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property; what has to be seen is what was the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is found, applying such test, that main intention is for letting out the property, or any part thereof, the same must be considered as rental income or income from property. In case, it is found that the main intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex commercial activities, in that event, it must be held as business income.
Atos Origin IT Services Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Director of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee who was tax resident of Singapore had entered into a hubbing agreement for providing data processing support to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) a non resident company engaged in the business of banking in India. Assessee receive amount from SCB India for use of disc space alongwith embedded software in the hardware of the assessee at its data centre in Singapore of the infrastructure of the assessee, whether CIT(A) was justified in treating the income earned by the assessee was of the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of DTAA and also within the meaning of clause (iii) of Explanation (2) below Sec.9(vi) of the Income tax Act. Held, No
Industrial Thermoplastics Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether the disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on interest payment by the assessee to a concern covered u/s 40A(2) though the assessee has explained that there is no taxable income of the corporation and the defects in Form 15H are curable and cannot be considered without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
Indusind Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether interest on government securities will become taxable on the date of coupon date as the assessee receives the right of the interest in the said securities only on the said date and it does not become due on day to day basis. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Limited Vs DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Pre-operative expenses and registration fee paid to SEBI are allowable as intangible asset and assessee can claim depreciation on the same and AO cannot question the allowability if same was allowed in the earlier AY.
Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- in regard to 14 bighas, the assessee was found to be a trespasser. The law does not recognize the rights of a trespasser. Ordinarily, it is said that the possession is the nine point of ownership. The possessor has got right over the property and his right cannot be challenged by any one except the true owner. Undoubtedly, for some time, the assessee was the possessor of the land and building. But from the facts culled out from the records, it cannot be concluded that the possessory rights of the assessee bear any legal recognition. Unless such rights are protected by law to associate the word ‘right’ with the said type of possession will be a misnomer, since right is a legally protected interest.
DCIT Vs Mr Sanjeev R Kanwar (ITAT Mumbai) – For making additions, FIR is contemporaneous evidence and the contents of the same cannot be ignored in the light of self-serving documents. Human conduct and human probabilities are to be given weightage over the self generated evidences.
