Re- Perfetti Van Melle Holding B.V., Netherlands (AAR) – Applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the payment to be made by Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited (‘Perfetti India’) for the cost to be allocated by Perfetti Van Melle Holding BV (‘the Applicant’) will not be taxable in India in the hands of the Applicant as per the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) entered into between India and The Netherlands?
Re Poonawalla Aviation Private Limited (AAR) – Clause 7 speaks of India limiting its taxation at source on interest dealt with in Article 12 of the Convention by providing a lower rate or by providing a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in the Convention, the same rate or scope shall also apply to the Convention in question. A question of lowering of rates is not involved here. What is contended is that the scope of taxation of interest has been further restricted by taking out of the purview of taxation, even loans or credits insured by Banque Francaise du Commerce Exteriur or COFACE. Going strictly by the other treaties relied on the restriction is only on taxing the interest income insured by Banque Francaise.
Manishkumar & Co. Vs. ITO( ITAT Ahmedabad)- The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in respect of the loan of Rs.13,77,000/- shown in the name of Shri Madanlal J. Panjabi. The assessee was only able to furnish the death certificate of Madanlal J. Panjabi. No other evidence including that from the legal heir of Mr. Panjabi was submitted The AO therefore, made the addition of Rs.13,77,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) also no details could be submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Further aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us.
ITAT held that the payment received for supplying the ‘Repair Technical Documents’ are treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act). The Tribunal further observed that the technical materials supplied by the taxpayer would not lose the characteristics of ‘Service’, simply because they were supplied in the form of bound manuals, more particularly when it is tailor made for the specific requirements of a person.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal is a fact finding authority and should have adjudicated the matter on merits. We are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue is not at all substantial and the amount in dispute is quite insignificant, considering that the case is one of a block assessment. There is no justification for the Income Tax Department to go on burdening the Tribunal, the Court with every case right up to the end. Apart from burdening the Tribunal and Courts, it also causes avoidable expenses to the Assessee. It is common knowledge that the Assessee has to pay for legal fees and merely because the Income Tax Department has got unlimited resources, there is no justification that every case should be dragged on. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal because of the insignificant amount involved in the matter. No substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Held by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Bhambri
Sanjay Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the instant case, surrender made by the assessee during the remand proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the statement of Shri Sanjay Rastogi recorded on oath on 27.9.2005, has never been retracted either during the reassessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings at any stage. The assessee has not even attempted to establish its bona fide nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings. Thus, in the light of view taken in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the levy of penalty.
CIT Vs.Nimbus Communications Limited (Bombay HC) – there is dispute that the assessee has in fact incurred the expenditure and that on account of the aborted public issue offer, no new asset has come into existence and consequently there is no question of the assessee getting any enduring benefit. With the approval of SEBI, the assessee was to increase the share capital and thereby promote its business activity. However, the same got aborted due to reasons beyond its control. In these circumstances, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s.Essar Oil Limited, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.921 of 2006 decided on 16th October 2008, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in allowing the aborted share issue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Shri Suresh Kumar D. Shah v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- It is held that in a Joint Development Agreement if the Developer has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then the transaction would qualify as a ‘transfer’ under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The fundamental feature which determines the taxability of capital gains is that the gain ought to be from the transfer of a capital asset. This section has a larger scope of operation as it states that the gain shall be deemed income of that previous year in which the transfer takes place. Accordingly, given the deeming provision, the income on account of capital gain should be charged to tax in the same previous year in which the transfer was effected or deemed to have taken place. The doctrine of ‘part performance’ is undoubtedly based upon the doctrine of equity. If one party has performed his part of duty then equity demands that the other party shall also perform his part of the obligation. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires the existence of following conditions:
Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (TDS) – in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is made only for the purpose a specific act, i.e. power transmission in this case, and even if an asset is used in the said process, the payment cannot be said to be for the use of an asset. When control of the asset (transmission lines in the present case) always remains with the PGCIL, any payment made to the PGCIL for transmission of power on the transmission lines and infrastructure owned controlled and in physical possession of PGCIL can be said to have been made for ‘the use of’ these transmission lines or other related infrastructure.
Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay HC) – In the present case, admittedly, the reopening of the assessment is beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The jurisdictional condition under Section 147 in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that Assessment Year. As noted earlier, in the narration of facts, there was a disclosure by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings of the fact that (i) During the previous year ending 31 March 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into with a Swiss Company; (ii) Under the MOU, the outstanding balance of the loan was settled at Swiss Francs 480,000 as against the outstanding balance of 800,000 Swiss francs;
