Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Delhi)- Whether proportionate deduction under section 80IA is permissible where major amount of profits is attributable to new setup and meagre amount is attributable to old set up in view of the amended provisions of of clause (iv)(c) of 80-IA and 80IA(4)(ii) – Whether quantum of deduction under section 80IA is directly proportional to the profits of the undertaking and hence it has nothing to do with investment made in plant and machinery – Case remanded.
When parties enter into two separate contracts, one for material and one for labour, the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale. In such a case, the provisions of section 194C would apply only to the labour contract and not to the materials contract. The supply portion of the contract being for supply of equipment does not require deduction of tax at source. -Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
CIT v Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – ITAT, on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease. It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds. The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity. The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted. It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration. The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant. Applying the aforesaid test, we hold that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 243, as it then stood.
Deepak Engineering Works and Others v CIT and Others (Patna High Court)- , section 278B, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they are not responsible for any of the offence committed by a firm / company. First proviso to section 278B(1), quoted above, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they were not responsible for acts of omission or commission committed by the firm / company. The question as to whether petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were actually involved in this case or not is a question of fact which is to be determined during the trial and onus is on the petitioners to prove that they were not responsible for any act of omission or commission of the firm i.e. petitioner no.1 M/s Deepak Engineering Works. Accordingly, in view of statutory provisions contained in section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act) first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.
ITAT Delhi has recently pronounced its ruling in the case of ST Microelectronics Private Limited v. CIT(A), wherein it upheld the revenue’s rejection of transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the taxpayer since the taxpayer had improperly characterized itself as a low-risk software service provider and accordingly, selected wrong comparables for the transfer pricing analysis. Besides, the decision also reiterates that it is a mandatory requirement of Rule 10B(4) of the Income-tax Rules 1962 [“the Rules”] to use current year data for comparability analysis.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bechtel International Inc., USA v. ADIT held that mere inactivity for a limited period does not mean that the taxpayer’s business ceased to exist or that it did not carry on any business at all. Expenditure incurred during the said period of inactivity / lull is allowable even though the taxpayer has not earned any business income.
DCIT, Haldwani Vs Shri Om Prakash Bhargava (ITAT Delhi) – Assessing Officer estimated the income on the basis of general information from Chief Agriculture Officer which was never confronted with assessee. Further such general information was with respect of earning from grain crop. But assessee was growing flowers and decorative plants which have been accepted by the revenue in past years. The assessee is holding the land of 24 bighas. Income of Rs.4,26,000/- have been accepted in the immediate preceding year, i.e. 2004-05. In this year, income from agriculture is only Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering all these relevant facts and the pleadings of the assessee, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee and we sustain the same on the issue.
Pushpsons International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The agreement to serve has not been placed on record and its terms have not been paraphrased in any submission. Further, it has not been shown that the understanding, if any, came to an end only when he became a partner and not when he left India. Factually, no service has been rendered to the assessee in the period of absence for education. Therefore, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 36,000/- was rightly made.
CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel- The assessee running coaching classes followed mercantile system of accounting. Total fees for the entire course, which may be of two years duration was taken in advance at the time of admission of the students. For the A.Y. 1997-1998, the assessee claimed that the fees received in the relevant year were to be carried forward to the next assessment year as they related to the next financial year. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.
Ramalingam Charities Vs CIT, Salem (Madras High Court) – Tribunal considered the claim of the revenue as well as the assessee and pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Trust deed was not existing solely for the educational purposes and that the trust had engaged itself in other activities by running orphanages, Kalyana mandapam, money lending business, etc., it cannot be held that the Trust was one solely carrying on the activities of educational institutions. The Tribunal further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11(5) of the Act and had diverted the funds to its sister concern, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Honourable HC also held that since the assessee has not satisfied the requirement under Section 11(5) to claim benefit under Section 12 of the Act so not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 for amount received as corpus fund.
