ACIT Vs M/s Yug Corporation (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the terms of the development agreements and the agreement to sell (copies filed on record) with both the societies, according to which the responsibilities of the assessee have been analyzed in such manner that planning, sanction of plan, work of construction, development of the property, engagement of labourers etc. have to be done by the assessee. It was also provided that the assessee would receive the entire sale consideration of the housing units and the assessee shall be entitled to accept the payments from the members/buyers.
Bhuwania Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- On investigation of the assessee’s purchases, it was noticed that the same were from Shri Shivkaran Goel who admitted before the Customs authorities as well as AO that he had not supplied any goods to the assessee, with which flanges liners with 55% tin could be manufactured.
Mid-Day Multimedia Ltd Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The AO must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.
Pidilite Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Section 80-IA(5) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply, shall for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the assessment year for which the determination is to be made. It is noticed that by virtue of sub-section (5), section 80-IA has become a stand alone provision.
Bhoruka Engineering Inds. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- The whole transaction has been arranged in a sequential manner with M/s. Bhoruka Steel Ltd selling its landed property to BFSL for a nominal value of Rs. 3.75 crores ; BFSL never before doing any business other than financial services purchases the land for Rs. 3.75 crores ; immediately thereafter the assessee company and its entire group holding 98.73% of shares in BFSL selling the share holding to DLFCDL for a consideration of Rs. 89,28,36,500/- without attracting any levy of taxation.
Siem Offshore Inc.Versus Commissioner concerned Director of Income-tax, Advance Ruling Authority- The payment for hire of vessels provided by the Applicant to Trans ocean would be covered under the definition of ‘plant’ as defined under section 44BB of the Act. Accordingly, consideration received for supply of vessels on hire used for offshore drilling activities and marine operations would be covered within the purview of section 44BB of the Act.
ITO Vs M/s Universal Associates (ITAT Ahemedabad)- Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view that the at least the assessee has been able to explain reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law. The ex-partners have introduced their capital in the assessee firm and on retirement they were given their amount back through bearer cheques and, therefore, the assessee is able to prove that it had reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law.
Procter & Gamble Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the non-competition fee paid to the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure– Whether the amount paid for licence fee is revenue expenditure for the rights granted which are non-exclusive rights to use the trademarks
Western Geco International Limited Vs. DDIT (International Taxation), Dehradun (Advance Ruling Authority)- Even if part of the income falls under ‘Royalties’ or ‘Fees for technical Services’, there is no scope to assess such receipts under these heads, once it is held that the income is from its oil exploration and production activities as envisaged under section 44BB. We are of the view that if the applicant desires to know the answers to the two issues, then it has to first exercise the option to get its income computed under section 44BB(3). In view thereof, we answer the Question No.2 by saying that the entire mobilization/demobilization revenues received by the applicant with respect to seismic data acquisition and/or processing would be taxable in India at an effective rate of 4.223%.
Krishna Murthy Vallu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- If land which is sold is situated in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality, etc, then the said land is squarely covered by clause (a) of section 2(14)(iii) and would fall in the category of ‘Capital assets’ even if it is held to be agricultural land. However, the assessee would be entitled for an exemption under section 54B on the reinvestment made by him in the purchase of another agricultural land subject to fulfilment of certain conditions.
