The assessee earned a capital profit of Rs. 10.38 crores on sale of rights to immovable property. The said profit was directly credited to the capital reserves in the balance sheet instead of being routed through the Profit & loss account. The accounts of the assessee company were duly certified by the auditors and were also adopted in the AGM. The audited accounts were filed with ROC. In the computation of “book profits” for s. 115JB, the said capital profits were not included.
S. 70, 115AD; A/y 2005-06; in favor of taxpayer:- Taxpayer, a FII, earned short-term capital gains on sale of shares which it bifurcated as pre and post 30 September 2004 (pre and post STT), chargeable to tax at 30% and 10%, respectively under section 115AD. It also suffered short-term capital loss during both these periods. It set-off pre-STT short-term capital loss against pre-STT short-term capital gain and also post-STT short- term capital loss against left over balance of pre-STT short-term capital gain. The Revenue, however, al owed set-off of post-STT short-term capital loss only against post-STT short-term capital gain.
S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.
S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,
We have considered the rival submissions carefully in the light of the relevant material on record as well as the decision cited by the parties. After careful perusal of various authorities relied on either side would show that they are quite distinguishable because none of the case law deals with the training expenses. In these cases some principles have been laid down. We further find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of Ishikawajima- Harima Heavy industries Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (supra) is not applicable because that decision
The undisputed fact which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Porus Kaka is that, no e-mail, correspondence, bill or any other documents or evidence pertaining to the impugned assessment year 2003-04 has been furnished or filed before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings despite requests to do so. Shri Porus Kaka on this undisputed fact wants us to rely on the copy of the e-mail correspondence of 27-10-1997 of one Ms. Sonali Surajhita. For ready reference, the copy of the e-mail which is so heavily relied upon by Shri Porus Kaka is extracted hereinbelow:
In respect of shares acquired under stock option scheme, the difference between the price of shares at the time of exercise of option and the predetermined price is liable to tax as perquisite under s. 17(2)(iii) up to 31st March, 2000.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of JCIT v State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-712- ITAT-MUM]. The ITAT held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Mauritius, having established a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is entitled to the deduction of expenses, incurred for the purpose of the business of the PE, in computing the profits of the PE under Article 7(3) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty). In view of the specific provisions of the Tax Treaty allowing the deduction for such expenses, such a deduction is not subject to restrictions prescribed under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Panatone Finvest Ltd.(Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-717-ITAT-MUM]. The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii) (Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of earning dividend income.
The use of word developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.
