ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – The payment made by the assessee to the non-resident for only providing advisory services and opinions for the improvement of existing facilities in the hotels for meeting international standards would not fall within ambit of “fees for included services” as enumerated in Art 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA. The provisions of s 195 were also not applicable and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of s 201(1).
CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
A.A.R. No. 840 of 2010 in the case of ABC International Inc. USA- Foreign corporates with subsidiaries in the country are not subject to payment of withholding tax for financial services like discounting of bills provided to their Indian arms. In a ruling, the Authority of Advanced Rulings (AAR) also held such companies are also not liable to pay income tax in case the firm is based in a country which has a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) agreement with India.
Mahendra C Shah vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The fact that the assessee borrowed for the purpose of buying shares is not conclusive that the assessee intended to do business in shares and not merely invest in them if the interest is capitalized as cost of the shares & not claimed as a revenue expenditure (Shanmugam 120 ITD 469 (Pune) followed). The fact of borrowing cannot be held against the assessee if there are other predominating factors in favour. Also as the assessee has own funds, it can be presumed that the shares were bought out of those funds.
Recently, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Eon Technology (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 11 taxmann.com 53 (Del) held that payment by way of commission for sales and marketing support outside India does not constitute income chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax act, 1961 (the Act).
Event and Entertainment Management Association versus Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)- Delhi HC has dismissed the petition seeking a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, to frame objective standards for determination and levying of royalties of various copyrighted works administered by Phonographic Performance Ltd and the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd and the mode of enforcing and administering such royalties. The association had also sought a further direction for investigation of the books of account of the two copyright societies to ascertain whether they have paid their dues to the owners/authors of copyrights. The association alleged that the government has failed to set down any objective standards and criteria for charging of royalties by the two societies, and the latter are therefore acting arbitrarily in fixing tariffs. The high court rejected the prayers stating that the fixation of tariff or royalties by the two companies in exercise of their powers under the Copyright Act is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The judgment explained that the law itself provided a mechanism for fixing tariffs and the matter can be dealt with by the copyright board.
The income received by the assessee (Sachin Tendulkar) from modelling and appearing in T.V. commercials and similar activities can be termed as income derived from the profession of an artist. As admitted by the ld. D.R., the assessee can have more than one profession. Therefore, there is no bar on the part of the assessee to have its second profession as an artist apart from playing cricket. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 5,92,31,211/- received by the assessee amounts to income derived by the assessee in the exercise of his profession as an artist and therefore entitled to deduction u/s 80RR of the Act.
Recently in the case of ITC Ltd v. CIT [2011-TIOL-287-HC-DEL-IT], the Delhi High Court (HC) held that the tips or service charges distributed to employees are to be treated as part of salary and tax is required to be withheld under section 192 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) from the same. The AO treated the value of these tips as ‘salary’ and held that the assessees were liable to withheld tax at source from such payments under section 192 of the Act.
Recently in the case of Lanka Hydraulic Institute Limited In AAR No. 874 of 2010 , the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) held that where the scope of work under a contract is primarily related to technology transfer by way of software along with ancillary services in the nature of field data collection/mathematical model studies, the consideration would constitute “Royalty” under Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Sri Lanka (the tax treaty). The applicant had argued that since there was no specific Article in the tax treaty for taxation of Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”), the consideration would constitute business profits under Article 7 of the tax treaty, which would not be taxable in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India. The AAR rejected this contention and ruled that the income would be taxed under Article 12 of the tax treaty as Royalty.
Recently in the case of ACIT v. Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1605 (Del) of 2010], the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held that payments made to non-resident freight forwarders are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the payer is not liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of disallowance of the amounts paid to non-resident freight forwarders under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
