THE assessee company was incorporated during the financial year 1997-98. Originally, there was a company jointly promoted by Tatas and IBM , which were known as Tata IBM. During the financial year 1997-98, it was mutually agreed between the two promoters to bifurcate the business activities into separate entities viz. IBM Global Services India Private Limited (the assessee company) and Tata IBM . As per the agreement entered into, various assets of the erstwhile Tat IBM were transferred to the assessee company has paid amounts of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – and Rs. 5.3 Crore on account of transfer of certain employees to the assessee company and on account of transfer of the data base of the domestic business. The assessee company actually paid a sum of Rs. 18.4 crore for the transfer of the employees to the assessee company but claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,38,57,925/ – as the remaining sum of around Rs. 9.01 crore was attributable to STP Unit, income of which was exempt.
The assessee is a partnership firm constituted by the Deed of Partnership dated 22.1.1980 and consisted of two partners, viz., Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Ms. V Sasikala . In terms of the Deed of Partnership, the Assessee carries on the business of all types of printing and publishing of newspapers, magazines, periodicals etc. and such other business or businesses as may be mutually agreed to between the partners. On 30.4.1990, the Assessee purchased a factory shed consisting of ‘ 3650 sq.ft. along with a factory building from Shri K. Viswanathan as per the sale deed dated 30.4.1900. It was the contention of the Counsel that the Assessee had installed a printing press in the factory premises and started its business of printing and publishing the political newspaper titled ‘ Namadu MGR ‘ for circulation among public and various agencies. While completing the original assessments the Assessee ‘ s claim was not fully allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee went in appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals) and he set aside the same. Since the Assessee failed to produce the contemporaneous primary evidence relating to the issue, he restricted the claim of the Assessee in all these years
Amadeus Global Travel vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) (i) The Amadeus system, by which subscribers in India are enabled to perform the functions of reservation and ticketing, represents a business connection because it extends to the Indian territory in the form of connectivity in India and generates income in India when the booking is completed on the subscribers’ computer; (ii) In determining the extent of profits attributable to such business connection, one has to look into the factors like functions performed, assets used and risk undertaken. On facts, as the major part of the work was processed at the host computer in Germany, only 15% of the revenue accruing to the assessee in respect of bookings made in India can be said to have accrued or arisen in India;
It comes into force on the 12th October, 2005 (120th day of its enactment on 15th June, 2005). Some provisions have come into force with immediate effect viz. obligations of public authorities [S.4 (1)], designation of Public Information Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers[S.5( 1) and 5(2)], constitution of Central Information Commission (S.12 and 13), constitution of State Information Commission (S.15 and 16), non-applicability of the Act to Intelligence and Security Organizations (S.24) and power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act (S.27 and 28).
In the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHE before setting off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the gross total income. Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that section 80HHE is the self-contained section and contains the definition of profits of the business, export turnover, total turnover etc. Section 80AB refers to the nature of income entitled for deduction u/s VIA and include in the gross total income. Section 80HHE does not refer to any income included in the gross total income.
THE Special Bench decided on a substantial question of Law. A bench of the Tribunal decides an issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue goes in appeal to the High Court, which dismisses the appeal as there was no substantial question of law. Is this decision of the High Court a binding precedent on the Special bench? `Yes’, ruled the Bench.
One Vivek Bansal, Liberty House, Karnal had originally purchased deep discount bonds 1997 of Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I) @ of Rs. 5500/- each (the original purchaser). From him the assessee-respondent purchased those bonds @ Rs.9700/- each on 01.01.2001 for total value of Rs.19,40,000/ – (the assessee secondary purchaser). The original purchaser filed his return for the assessment year 2001-02 and reflected the difference in amount of purchase and the sale. Thus, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- became long term capital gain in respect of the original assessee. It is undisputed that the bonds were subject to accruing of interest year to year although, no income was received annually by the bond holder. The condition was modified by issuance of a press note later. The assessee-secondary purchaser received a draft of Rs. 19,08,200/-. This amount has been accounted for by the assessee-secondary purchaser.
The Supreme Court has disapproved of the view of the Guwahati High Court and upheld the opinion of the Calcutta High Court on the question of applicability of Section 80HHC deduction under the Income Tax Act for companies which do both agriculture and trade.The tax authorities had appealed to the Supreme Court against the high court judgments in a large batch of companies engaged in growing, manufacturing and exporting tea.
The Tribunal held that even if the amount received by the assessee on redemption of share appreciation right is held to be not taxable under the head `income from salaries’ this fact, by itself would not take the same outside the ambit of taxable income, since, in such an eventuality, the said amount will be taxable under the head `income from other sources’. Even if it is held that amount in question is received from a person other than the employer of the assessee, and that in order for an income to be taxed under the head `income from salaries it is a condition precedent that the salary, benefit or the consideration must flow from employer to the employee, the amount received by the assessee on redemption of stock appreciation rights will still be taxable – though under the head `Income from other sources’. The plea raised by the assessee that the amount in question cannot be taxed as `income from salaries’ is thus irrelevant.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that as per the Payment of Bonus Act, if a workman had worked for 30 days in a relevant period, he was eligible for a pro rata bonus. Therefore,once the management was ready to pay bonus as per the law for the period 1991-92 (and it had so notified), it could not refuse to pay ex-gratia amount to workers.
