A.F. Ferguson & Co. Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax – The dispute is regarding allowability of deductions on account of payments made by the assessee to the retired partners and wives of deceased partners while computing the total income. The payments had been made under the provisions of partnership deed.
ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (ITAT Mumbai) -The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs. DCIT [(2009) 122 TTJ (Mum.) (SB) 577] has laid down the proposition to the effect that the Departmental Representative has no jurisdiction to go beyond the order passed by the A.O. It has further been observed in this case that the scope of argument of the Departmental Representative should be confined to supporting ordefending the impugned order and he cannot be permitted to set up an altogether different case.
ACIT vs. Smith & Newphew Healthcare (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – As rightly held by the CIT(A), the requirement of law is that the Assessee has to “keep and maintain” information and documents in respect of international transaction entered into with AE. Rule 1OD(4) of the Rules envisages that the information and documents specified under sub-rules (1) and (2) should, as far as possible, be contemporaneous and should exist latest by the specified date referred to in clause (iv) of section 92F, which is due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
SKIL Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The nature of arrangement entered by the appellant for transportation of its employees between residence to office is similar to the arrangement mentioned in the circular No. 558, dated 28th March 1990, issued by the CBDT regarding the applicability of the provisions of section 194C of the Act to the hire charges paid to bus owners. Apartment from this, other circulars (ie., circular number 681 dated March, 8, 1994, circular No. 713 dated August 2, 1995 and circular number 715 dated August 8, 1995) have specifically provided that the provisions of section 1 94C of the Act shall apply in case where bus or any other mode of transport is chartered. Based on the reading of the circulars, I am of the opinion that payments made by the appellant are of similar nature and hence tax should be deductible under section 1 94C of the Act;
CIT vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (Bombay High Court)-In both the cases, the assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment.
As the consideration for live broadcasting does not fall either u/s 9(1)(i) or u/s 9(1)(vi), in our considered opinion, such amount is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of this Act in the hands of non-resident. As such there is no question of deduction of tax at source. Asstt. DIT (Intl. Tax.) v. M/s.Neo Sports Broadcast Private Limited (ITAT mumbai) –
ACIT vs. The Total Packaging Services (ITAT Mumbai)- The payment of Central excise duty has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly, the refund of the Central excise duty also has 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. There is, therefore, an inextricable link between the manufacturing activity, the payment of Central excise duty and its refund. So Assessee is eligible to deduction u/s. Sec. 80IB(1) on Excise Duty Refund/Modvat Credit.
SBS Clothing (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – In this case, there was 5-fold increase on account of payment of salary when there was no substantial increase in the turnover. The AO vide note dated 25.10.2007 had asked for reasons for exorbitant rise in salary to which assessee filed letter dated 19.11.2003 replied that the same was because of payment made to job workers in the earlier years whereas in the current year job workers had been taken on salary basis and salary had been paid to them.
ACIT Vs Bharat Oman Refineries Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – So far as the receipts on account of tender forms and by way of water and electricity charges to the contractors were concerned, they would not be treated as arising out of a source of income separate from the business which was being set up. Since, the business had not been fully set up, the receipts and payments would be clearly on capital account and hence not liable to tax. In a case where these receipts and payments pertains to the fixed structure of the company’s business that was being set up, it would be inconsistent to hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee prior to the setting up would be of a capital nature but the receipts would be of a revenue nature.Hence, the impugned receipts were of a capital nature and were not liable to tax.
In our considered opinion, the authorities below were not justified in not granting the set off of the brought forward business loss for the reason that the requirement to file return within the time prescribed u/s.139(1) is for carrying forward the loss. Once loss is determined in the return file u/s.139(3), the assessee becomes eligible for set off against the income of the subsequent years irrespective of the fact whether the returns of such later years are filed u/s.139(1) or not. Sec. 80 read with sec. 139(3) requires the submission of return for loss before the due date.
