In thie case ITAT held that the non-compete fees was in the nature of capital expenditure and entitled for depreciation as intangible asset under Section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. ITAT followed the in view of the Chennai Tribunal’s decision in the case of Real Image Tech. Export turnover of Export Oriented Unit can be included in export turnover of business while determining deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act
ACIT Vs. Symantec Software India P. Ltd. (ITAT Pune)- Based on the specific facts of the case, the Tribunal has reiterated that the fulfillment of the conditions of section 10A(2) is of utmost importance for claiming a deduction under section 10A. A reference to the new undertaking as expansion by the STPI would not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 10A of the Act.
Dive into the case of Demag Cranes & Components vs. DCIT, exploring provisions of 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules and TP adjustments.
Thomas Garbarek Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be leviable where the assessees have been able to establish their bonafide and innocence. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppression of income so as to trigger levy of penalty, unless there is a direct attempt to hide an income from the knowledge of the income tax authorities. In particular relevance to assessees is the observation of the Tribunal that ‘bona fide belief can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence when possibility of documentary evidence cannot be expected’.
DCIT Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – Section 234D of the Act provides for charging of interest on excess refund granted to the assessee. Section 234D has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003. Consequently, it is made out by the assessee that the same is applicable only from the assessment year 2004-05 onwards and not in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, no interest under section 234D could be levied for the instant assessment year. The assessment year before us is 1996-97, which is prior to the assessment year 2004-05.
Bindview India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- In light of Pune bench’s decision in the case of Starent Networks (I) P. Ltd. Pune v. DCIT, the assessee’s claim for +/- 5% in order to compute arm’s length price in terms of erstwhile proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act is accepted. Provisions of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10B are quite explicit and provide for analysing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with the international transaction in question on the basis of the data relating to financial year in which the international transaction sought to be tested has been entered into.
Expenditure can be disallowed only in the event of non-deduction of tax at source, and not in the cases involving short deduction, TDS not required to be deducted on exchange rate difference if TDS already been deducted at the time of credit of amount
Madhukar Vinayak Dhavale Vs. ITO, International taxation (ITAT Pune)- An individual who leaves India as a crew member of an Indian ship will be a non-resident if his stay in India is less than 182 days in the tax year.The assessee has not produced any evidence to support his claim that he stayed outside India for the purpose of employment beyond 158 days.
Admittedly, in the instant case the assessee had purchased the shares outside stock exchange directly from the broker in physical form though D-mat account was opened at a belated date with this explanation that at the time of purchase of shares, he was not having D-mat account and on opening of D-mat account, the shares were transferred.
Sandvik Asia Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)- The Issue before the tribunal was whether interest paid on income tax due can be set off against interest received on income tax refunds under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the Division Bench (DB) of the Pune Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion between the Members and, accordingly, the issue was referred to the Third Member for a majority opinion. The Third Member held that the interest paid and interest received from the Tax Authority cannot be set off against each other and the whole of the interest received is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
