the unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as applicable for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000.
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in its recent ruling in the case of M/s Hinduja TMT Ltd. [2010-T11-18-ITAT-MUM-TP] , has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the arm’s length nature of its international transactions with associated enterprises. In this regard, the uncontrolled comparable data as well as other relevant details submitted by the assessee must be examined by the Revenue. Arm’s length price (“ALP”) must eventually be established with reference to appropriate uncontrolled comparable data and other relevant details, and by applying the methods prescribed in the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In the same ruling, on a separate ground of appeal, the Tribunal considered whether the sale of investment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital gain or business income. Based on the facts, the Tribunal has, without giving any findings, restored the file back to the assessing officer (“AO”) so that the AO may take a view, consistent with those taken in earlier assessment years on identical issues, after considering the assessee’s contentions and having regard to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582; 188 Taxman 140).
In a recent case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd.1 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“ITAT”) has held that royalty payments made by a resident of Singapore to another Singaporean entity, as consideration of rights to transmit and broadcast matches etc. in India, are not subject to Indian withholding tax requirements. The ITAT in this case relied on Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty (“Treaty”), which provides that royalty payments will be considered to arise in India, only if the royalty is paid by a resident of India or incurred in connection with its permanent establishment (“PE”) in India and such royalty is borne by such PE.
It is mandatory for the assessee to follow one of the methods prescribed in Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and demonstrate that the international transactions entered with the associated enterprise are at arm’s length.
Where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract
Penalty under section 271(1)(c)-Concealment-Disallowance of expenses due to delay in payment of TDS-The disallowance of expenditure does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
In our view decision in the case of Green Emirate Shipping & Travels (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As held in the aforesaid easel expression liable to tax’ in that contracting state as used in Article 4(l)of Indo-UAE-DTAA does not necessarily imply that the person should actually be liable to tax in that contracting state land that it is enough if other contracting state has right to tax such person, whether or not such a right is exercised
In this bunch of four appeals, the assessee has challenged the impugned common order of the Learned CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 dated 24.11.2006 and all these four appeals are arising out of the orders passed by the I.T.O.(TDS) – 3(1), Mumbai (in short the A.O.) treating the assessee in deemed default for not deducting the tax at source u/s. 194C and 194J of the Act.
Where it was clear from the original assessment orders as well as order made by the appellate authority that the Assessing Officer was well aware about the primary facts, viz., the claim made by the assessee, the circumstances under which the claim was made, and the provisions of law which could be applied while granting the benefits, and the Assessing Officer consciously considered the facts and arrived at a decision, the assessment cannot be reopened merely because subsequently the Assessing Officer changes his opinion or some other officer takes a different view.
