1. This Special Bench was constituted on the recommendation of the regular Bench which was hearing above appeals. The controversy relates to the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC to an assessee (industrial undertaking) after it has been allowed deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the effect of provision of Section 80-IA(9) introduced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 is to be seen.
It was contended by the assessee that their agricultural land is situated in the rural area outside the municipal limit and hence does not fall within the ambit of provisions of s. 2(14) of the Act and not liable to tax in the assessee’s hand. But the AO has not accepted the contention of the assessee and treated the sale consideration of assessee’s share as undisclosed income of the asses see and added to the income of the assessee.
The assessee incurred expenditure on issue of convertible debentures. The department claimed that convertible debentures were akin to shares and that in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond 225 ITR 798 the expenditure was capital in nature. HELD rejecting the claim that:
Chapter XIX-A is a complete Code in itself as regards settlement of cases for having provided a complete mechanism other than procedure provided under the IT Act. Legislature conferred all powers upon Settlement Commission being vested in IT authority under the Act as provided U/s 245-F and what is being decided
Therefore, we hold that it is a revenue receipt exigible to tax under Section 4 of the Income Tax Act. Section 194-A of the Act has no application for the purpose of this case as it encompasses deduction of the income at the source. However the appellants are entitled to spread over the income for the period for which payment came to be made so as to compute the income for assessing tax for the relevant accounting year.”
Having regard to the agreement entered into inter se between the hospital and the TPA for payment of money to the hospital, it cannot be said that the TPA, who is the authority or the person to pay the amount to the hospital, is not required to deduct the tax at source and section 194J is not attracted.
T.K. Jayaraman, Technical Member. – This appeal has been filed against the Adjudication Order No. 15/2007 (VR), dated 17-5-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate. 2. Shri MSV Prasad, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR for the revenue.
Columbia Sportswear Company Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore – (Advance Ruling Authority) – In addition to the activities relating to the purchase of goods, the Liaison Office was carrying out various activities such as ensuring the choice of quality material, occasional quality testing, conveying of requisite design, picking out competitive sellers, etc. Further, the Liaison Office facilitated the business of the applicant in Eygpt and Bangladesh. It will be unrealistic that all the activities other than the actual sale of the goods are not integral part of the business of the applicant and have no role in the profit being made by the applicant on the sale of its branded products.
n the recent past the question of interpretation of newly inserted section 12AA( with effect from 01/04/1997) has always been perennial teaser not only to the trust or institutions but also to the Revenue Department as also faced by the judiciary. To get the answer we have heard both the sides at length, carefully perused the impugned order and also several correspondences filed in the compilation in the light of the case laws cited
S. 254 D (4A) was amended by the Finance Act 2007 to provide that if in respect of an application filed before 1.6.2007, the Settlement Commission did not pass a final order before 31.3.2008, the proceedings would abate. S. 245 HA (3) provided that the consequence of such abatement was that the income-tax authorities could, in making the assessment
