The AO held the assessee to be a trader in shares & assessed the gains as business profits on the ground that (a) there was high frequency & sale transactions, (b) there were instances where delivery was not taken and shares were sold within a short period,
The assessee had paid a sum of Rs.2 crores to M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd (PGI) towards technical know how fees in assessment year 1994-95. The assessee had amortized the expenditure over a period of six years and claimed deduction of Rs.33,33,333/- being 1/6th of the payment during the year.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that interest income earned on fixed deposit made for the purpose of business should be considered as business income and not as income from other sources. Further, the Tribunal held that salary and welfare expenses of taxpayer’s staff will not be covered under section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) since the expenses are directly related to the Indian Project. The Tribunal also held that the payment made for procurement services cannot be considered to be a payment towards fees for technical services as per India-Korea Tax Treaty (the tax treaty) since procurement services were purely commercial in nature and had nothing to do with rendering of any technical managerial or consultancy services.
Primarily, the intention with which an assessee starts his activity is the most important factor. If shares are purchased from own funds, with a view to keep the funds in equity shares to earn considerable return on account of enhancement in the value of share over a period then merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within six months
A recent decision of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) [AIT-2010-503-ITAT] in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue of whether settlement of deferred sales tax liability, under an option made available by the statutory authority to pay the net present value (NPV)
Routers and switches are to be included in block of `Computer’ entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60 percent
In view of the decision in Broswel Pharmaceutical Inc vs ITO 83 TTJ 126 (All) it is not mandatory on the part of the assessee to move application before the Revenue Authorities for granting of stay of outstanding demand. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument of the department that the stay application should be rejected outright since the assessee has not moved any petition before the Revenue Authorities seeking stay of the demand. Seeking stay before the lower authorities is directory and not mandatory.
Ruling allows the non-resident assessees to toggle between the DTAA and the Act. The logic of the decision is also in consonance with the provisions of the section 90(2) of the Act which allows the non-residents to be governed by the provisions of the DTAA or Act, whichever is beneficial to them.
This decision could have far reaching impact on asset management companies. Apart from the withholding tax obligations, asset management companies could also be regarded as agents of non-resident investors. This implies that asset management companies could be proceeded against by the tax authorities for assessment and recovery of non-resident investors’ taxes.
ITAT held that the consideration paid by the taxpayer to foreign affiliates for purchase of Business Information Report (BIR) was not ‘royalty’ within the meaning of explanation 2(iv) to section 9(1 )(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further, no withholding of tax is required when payment is made to foreign affiliates for purchase of Business Information Report.
