THE variety of information which is nowadays being sought under the RTI Act has indeed grown in quality and magnitude. One such quality question was volleyed at the CBDT which is related to Sec 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Computation u/s 115JA. The Assessing Officer while computing book profits u/s 115JA made disallowance on account of provisions made for (i) depreciation on investment, (ii) provision for amortization of securities, (iii) rebate allowed, (iv) provision for bad and doubtful debts, and (v) provision for fraud cases. It has been pleaded that in respect of first three items the nature of provisions has been explained under normal provisions. As regards provision for bad and doubtful debts, the same had been made as per RBI guidelines.
THE High Court stays the transfer of a file from one ITO to another; the transferred ITO ignores the High Court order and proceeds with the assessment. Later on the High Court quashing the transfer, the old ITO proceeds with assessment. Tribunal rules that it is time barred; High Court concurs.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by its order dated 23.01.1995, referred the following question, which according to it covered the controversy raised in the four questions proposed by the Revenue, for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act
FOR the Income Tax Department, the latest ruling of the Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court amounts to a big win. And, at the centre of the dispute was whether the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchasing new plant and machinery before the same is put to use is revenue expenditure or to be added to the ‘actual cost’ of the asset? What further complicated the issue was the fact that the assessee was a running company and wanted to set up a new plant by buying new machinery out of borrowed capital.
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.
