S. 94(7) was inserted prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to disallow dividend stripping losses. If the argument of the Revenue that even transactions prior to s. 94(7) can be disallowed is accepted, it will render s. 94(7) redundant and also lead to anomalous results.
the unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as applicable for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000.
Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT On this issue, the Kerala High Court observed that it was the SIM card which linked the mobile subscriber to the assessee`s network. Therefore, supply of SIM card by the assessee-telecom company was only for the purpose of rendering continued services to the subscriber of the mobile phone. The position was the same so far as recharge coupons or e-topups were concerned which were only air time charges collected from the subscribers in advance under a prepaid scheme.
The notification dt . 10th of September, 2004 was issued and made effective from the date of its issuance. The same did not include the concept of “computer training institute” within its ambit and under the aforesaid notification, exemption was only granted to vocational and recreational training institute. A computer training institute which is defined and was included in the notification dt . 20th June, 2003 was specifically excluded from the purview of the notification dt. 10th Sept ., 2004. The Central Government while doing so was fully conscious of the implication thereof and also of the fact as to what constitutes a computer training institute as defined in the notification dt. 20th June, 2003.
This Article summarizes the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(Assessee) [2010-VIL12-SC-CB] on the issue of eligibility of a local manufacturer/dealer to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) if the sale is a penultimate sale made to the exporter in connection to the export of goods. The SC held that if there is an inextricable link between the last sale and the export of goods, the same would be exempt under section 5 (3) of the CST Act.
Capital gains-Scope of section 50C-Extension of section 50C to purchaser-Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities as undisclosed investment under section 69. This fiction cannot be extended any further and, therefore, cannot be invoked by AO to tax the difference in the hands of the purchaser.
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in its recent ruling in the case of M/s Hinduja TMT Ltd. [2010-T11-18-ITAT-MUM-TP] , has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the arm’s length nature of its international transactions with associated enterprises. In this regard, the uncontrolled comparable data as well as other relevant details submitted by the assessee must be examined by the Revenue. Arm’s length price (“ALP”) must eventually be established with reference to appropriate uncontrolled comparable data and other relevant details, and by applying the methods prescribed in the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In the same ruling, on a separate ground of appeal, the Tribunal considered whether the sale of investment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital gain or business income. Based on the facts, the Tribunal has, without giving any findings, restored the file back to the assessing officer (“AO”) so that the AO may take a view, consistent with those taken in earlier assessment years on identical issues, after considering the assessee’s contentions and having regard to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582; 188 Taxman 140).
Income from services in connection with seismic surveys, data acquisition, processing and interpretation of such data is covered under Section 44BB of the IT Act, 1961 and cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’
In a recent case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd.1 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“ITAT”) has held that royalty payments made by a resident of Singapore to another Singaporean entity, as consideration of rights to transmit and broadcast matches etc. in India, are not subject to Indian withholding tax requirements. The ITAT in this case relied on Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty (“Treaty”), which provides that royalty payments will be considered to arise in India, only if the royalty is paid by a resident of India or incurred in connection with its permanent establishment (“PE”) in India and such royalty is borne by such PE.
