In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year; such a recording is absolutely mandatory as per the provision and as laid down in various judgments
The disallowance of claim under section 35D made by the AO by excluding the share premium from the capital employed in the business of the company is justified.
Section 44BB(1) does not talk of `extraction of mineral oil’ simplicitor; it prefixes phrase `in connection with’ to the expression `extraction of mineral oil’, which shows that the section, by virtue of the phrase `in connection with’, is talking of something other than physical operations below the surface of the earth
Coming to the merits of the case, the first question that needs to be decided is whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to present its case. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no requirement of the Commission to invite parties to present their point of view before forming a prima-facie opinion. But the Commission may for the purpose of satisfying itself on any aspect permit the parties to present
It is evident from the facts of the case that an automatic voltage stabilizer involves the operation of a number of electronic components. A voltage stabilizer might have many components some of which use electricity. This cannot be the sole reason for classifying it as an electrical good. As noticed earlier, an electrical device can be an electronic device, but an electronic device cannot be an electrical device. The Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority after taking into consideration the components of voltage stabilizer, the purpose for which it is used and the principles on which it works has come to the conclusion that the voltage stabilizer is electronic goods, for the purpose of taxation under U.P. Trade Tax Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
Once the three conditions pointed out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to deductions in respect of the interest and charges paid on the loans; the matter would be different only in a case where after borrowing the funds from the bank, the assessee utilizes those very funds by giving interest free loans to others.
ITAT Mumbai held in above case that that since there was no sale, discarding, demolition or destruction of an asset, no adjustment can be made to the Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets. Accordingly, the depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees has to be allowed since these assets already formed part of the block of assets.
ITAT Delhi held that the perquisite value of rent free accommodation (RFA) provided by the employer being shared between expatriates should be on a proportionate allocable basis provided it is supported by appropriate evidence.
The back office operations and software development services carried out by an Indian subsidiary are held to be a fixed place permanent establishment of a Foreign Company. It has also been held that the contract entered into by the foreign company with its clients for providing certain IT-enabled services and then assigning or sub-contracting the same contract to Indian Subsidiary for execution can be said to constitute a business connection in India and profits attributed to the permanent establishment are determined based on the global profits in proportion to Indian assets to global assets.
Recently, the Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Robert Bosch GmbH v. ACIT [2010-TII-149-ITAT-BANG-INTL] (the taxpayer) while rejecting the contention of the tax department held that the taxpayer is not expected to make royalty income with reference to the sale effected to it by an Indian company, when the know how for manufacture of the same is supplied by the taxpayer itself. Accordingly, such notional royalty income was not taxable within the provisions of Section 5(2) and Section 9(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with India-Germany tax treaty (the tax treaty).
