This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
The right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/ debentures on rights basis comes into existence when the company decides to come out with the rights offer. Prior to that, such right, though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallizes only when the rights offer is announced bythe company.
The ITAT answered the question in favour of the tax payer by holding that an appeal can be filed against the order of the AO giving effect to the MAP resolution. Further, ITAT held that the percentage of 10% be applied to net income after reducing the commission paid to the Indian agent.
Loss of a unit not eligible for any tax holiday cannot be set off against profits of the eligible unit for the purpose of computing deduction
The applicant is a company incorporated in Japan and is engaged in the business of providing „Products Lifecycle Management? software solutions, applications and services. These software products are standardized and not customized or tailor-made. It markets its products in India through a distribution channel of third party resellers comprising Value Added Resellers („VAR?) who resells the software to end-users.
It is not in dispute that the activity of the assessee is of property promoter. As the property in the hands of the assessee was treated as business asset and not as capital asset, there is no question of invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Section 50C of the Act pertains to determining the full value of the capital asset. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly. 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
The Mumbai Tribunal, following earlier judicial pronouncements and Circulars, has once again highlighted that the characterization of income from sale of shares as „capital gains or business income is a fact-based analysis. The decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Management Structure & Systems Pvt. Ltd is significant because in this case the taxpayer’s income from investments was substantially higher than the income earned from its main business activity of management consultancy.
Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA) deals with tax holidays for eligible businesses. Sub-section (5) of section 80-IA of ITA provides that for the purpose of determining the quantum of the deduction, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the taxpayer. This deeming fiction is applicable from the initial assessment year i.e. the first year of claim of the deduction.
The plain reading of the income tax provisions dealing with determination of residential status of an individual indicates that beneficial provisions relaxing the tax residency will apply to an Indian citizen leaving India for the purpose of employment and not otherwise. In the above case, the AAR has applied the above beneficial provisions even in the year when the individual returns back to India.
