The transportation of passengers, mails or cargo etc. by the assessee in the international traffic by the aircraft as owner/ charterer/ lessee would fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Indo-US Tax Treaty and therefore, profits attributed to the same cannot be taxed in India; further, the profits from inland transportation directly connected with such transportation would also not be taxable in India.
Cuttack bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of R.R. Caryying Corpn. v. ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 240 (Cuttack) held that only the embedded portion of the profits is to be considered as taxable and not the entire amount in the case of discrepancies between the sales or receipt amount as per books of accounts and the amount shown in TDS certificate, for taxability purpose.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT v. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited [2010-TIOL-124-HC-DEL-IT] on the issue of whether the year in which trial production starts can be considered as initial Assessment Year (AY) for claiming benefit under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after relying on various judicial precedents held that the initial year is the year in which the commercial production starts and not trial production.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (ITA no. 6133/Mum/2002, ITA No. 7589/Mum/2003) held that the withdrawal of circular no. Circular no. 23 dated 23 July 1969 and Circular no. 786 dated 7 February 2000 by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is effective from 22 October 2009 as made applicable vide Circular no. 7 dated 22 October 2009.
AAR Ruling: Architectural services provided by a limited partnership is liable to tax as “fees for technical / included services” as per the provisions of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (A.A.R. No. 832 of 2009)].
As on November, 1998, the word company or firm was not included under definition of section 65(31) and section 66A had come into force w.e.f 18-4-2006, therefore, service tax was not applicable to a foreign company for rendering service in India for the period November, 1998 to December, 2000
No provision similar to the provision enabling both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal to admit appeals presented beyond the period of limitation if they are satisfied that there was sufficient cause on the part of the appellant for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act is framed in the context of appeals to the High Court under s. 260A.
Assessee having failed to prove the identity of the non-resident donors who are said to have gifted substantial amounts to him from their NRE accounts by producing them personally or copies of their passports and also failed to prove the creditworthiness of the said donors, the alleged gifts cannot be treated as genuine, more so since the assessee had no direct relationship with the donors, there was no occasion for making the gifts, and there was no contact between the parties for almost ten years before the time of said gifts.
This has been made clear in the proviso to s. 220(2) as per which where as a result of order under ss. 154, 155 and 245D etc. amount on which interest is payable is reduced the interest would be reduced accordingly. Therefore the interest under s. 220(2) will be legally leviable from the date of default in payment of demand by the assessee till the date of admission of the application by the assessee by Settlement Commission under s. 245D(1).
Where a hospital engaged consulting doctors and provided them with consulting chambers with secretaries assistance and the fees collected from out-patients and paid to the consultants each day after deducting certain amount towards rent and secretarial assistance, it was not a case of payment of professional fee and neither s. 192 nor s. 194J was attracted and the hospital cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax from such payments.
