Shantilal M. Jain vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)-Though it is the case of the revenue that due to volume, magnitude, frequency, continuity, regularity, the ratio between purchase and sale clearly indicate that income on account of purchase and sale of shares should be treated as income from business and not as income from STCG, the AO has, from AY 2003-04 to 2008-09 (except for the impugned year 2006-07), consistently accepted the income as being STCG. In these circumstances, the Rule of consistency as propounded by the Bombay High Court in Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom) is squarely applicable and the income has to be treated as STCG.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy (Mumbai ITAT) held that Assessing Officer thus was right in applying the provision of section 50C to the transfer of depreciable capital assets covered by section 50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Ruchi Strips & Alloys Ltd vs. DCIT held that the concealment of income had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. If the assessment as per the normal procedure was not acted upon and it was the deemed income assessed u/s 115JB which became the basis of assessment, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. The concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all.
The AO’s argument that the assessee could have utilized its surplus funds for repaying the borrowings instead of investing in shares and by not doing so, there was diversion of borrowed funds towards investment in shares to earn dividend income is not acceptable in view of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 (P&H) where Abhishek Industries was distinguished and it was held disallowance u/s 14A of interest on borrowed funds was not permissible if the investment in shares was made out of own funds.
Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Raj Ratan Palace Co-op Hsg Soc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee-society had merely given permission to the developer to construct on the society’s land. No part of the land was ever transferred by the society. The Society continued to be the owner of the land and no change in ownership of land had taken place. Mere grant of consent will not amount to transfer of land/or any rights therein. The amount of Rs. 3.02 crores received by the members (on which some of them had paid tax) was not assessable in the assessee’s hands either u/s 2(24) or as capital gains
DDIT vs. Safmarine Container Lines NV The Mumbai Tribunal in this case has observed that unless there is a specific language in the tax treaty which keeps the income from inland transportation in connection with international traffic outside the purview of Article 8 of the tax treaty, inland haulage charges would be considered as directly connected with operation of ship in international traffic and thus are not taxable in India.
Wockhardt Ltd. v/s ACIT – [2011] (Mumbai – ITAT) – The Tribunal has held that the services rendered by the non-residents should be in the nature of technical services and such services should make available technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how, etc., that enables the recipient of services to apply the said technology independently in its business, so as to fall within the purview of “fees for included services” as per tax treaty with USA, UK, Canada. Failing this the payments will not be subject to tax in India.
Siemens Aktiencesellschaft v. DCIT – ITAT Mumbai held that royalty received by the taxpayer was in pursuance to agreement entered into before 1976 and therefore not covered under Section 1 15A of the Act. The Tribunal has meticulously examined concepts such as novation/recession/modification and alteration as provided in the Contract Act to analyse the substance of the agreement and in conclusion rule that the 1981 agreement was an extension of 1974 agreement.
The issue is whether the payments made to the parent company on account of reimbursement of salaries in relation to services rendered by the personnel on deputation to the JV attract the liability of TDS. The Counsel for the assessee and the DR made a contradictory statement with respect to the fact that the details have been furnished before the AO. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to verify the details of expenditure and examine whether the payments were actual reimbursement of expenses pertaining to personnel deputed with the assessee company. However the AO shall restrict himself to the evidences which have been submitted before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue in accordance with the law.
