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.
Swatanter Kumar J.- Before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer, Ward-II New Delhi, while preferring an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 1, 1999, relating to the assessing year 1996-97, raised the following issue
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend received by the assessee on the shares held by him as stock-in-trade of his share business was earned income ?
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.
ITAT Delhi held that a captive service provider assuming minimal risks, cannot be compared to a large company like Infosys Technologies Limited which assumes all risks leading to greater rewards.
The ITAT Delhi held where a taxpayer engaged in rendering advertising and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is also acting as an intermediary between the AEs and the third party vendor to rent advertisement space from the vendor, costs recovered by the taxpayer from the AEs for such renting and then passed on to the vendors (pass-through costs) would not be value adding costs for the taxpayer and would, therefore, not be taken into account for computing net profit margin (Operating Profit / Total Cost) of the taxpayer for applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act , 1994 against order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi proposing following substantial question of law
In this tax appeal, Tribunal upholds Section 78 penalty, sets aside Section 76. Learn about the mutually exclusive nature and legal implications.
M/s Sasken Communication v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors (Karnataka High Court) The contract for development of software in question are not works contract but contract for service simplicitor and hence not liable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contract for development of software is not a composite contract consisting of a contract of service and contract for sale of goods. It is an indivisible contract of service only.
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Parle Bisleri Ltd challenging the ruling against it by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an excise dispute over its soft drink flavours and the use of their brand names. Apart from Parle Bisleri, two others involved were Parle Exports Ltd and Parle International Ltd. Parle Bisleri claimed excise benefits as a small scale industry in the 1990’s. The claim was rejected by the tribunal. It appealed to the Supreme Court, which stated that the tribunal was right in denying the benefit by clubbing the products of the three companies. The court said: “the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management… It would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer disputed questions. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the tribunal,which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this court.”
