Raj Ratan Palace Co-op Hsg Soc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee-society had merely given permission to the developer to construct on the society’s land. No part of the land was ever transferred by the society. The Society continued to be the owner of the land and no change in ownership of land had taken place. Mere grant of consent will not amount to transfer of land/or any rights therein. The amount of Rs. 3.02 crores received by the members (on which some of them had paid tax) was not assessable in the assessee’s hands either u/s 2(24) or as capital gains
Recently Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T&D vs. ADIT ruled that the Revenue can reopen the assessment proceedings on change of opinion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Such re-opening of the assessment by the Income Tax department is legal where no return has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year in dispute, high court said.
Delhi High Court (the High Court) in case of DIT v. SNC Lavalin International Inc [2011] 332 ITR 314 (Del) held that fees received by the taxpayer for providing technical drawings and reports in relation to infrastructure projects would qualify as Fees for Included Services under India-Canada tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, tax was to be deducted at 15 percent on payments made to the taxpayer. Further, the High Court observed that the term transfer as used in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty does not refer to absolute transfer of ownership; but refers to transfer of technical drawings or designs for the use or the benefit of other party.
M/s. Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. & ANR Vs. State of U.P. & Ors (Supreme Court) – UP Trade Tax – stainless steel wire is not covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act: the language used in entry no. (ix) is plain and unambiguous and that the items which are mentioned there are “tools, alloy and special steel”. By using the words “of any of the above categories” in entry Nos. (ix) would refer to entries (i) to (viii) and it cannot and does not refer to entry no (xv).
ITO (TDS-1), Ahmedabad v. Apollo Hospitals International Ltd – There are two types of agreements. One of the covenant is stated to be in the nature of employer/employee agreement and the other is stated to be FGC contract. The distinction between the two inter alia include: a) In case of the employee doctors, there is a list of allowances (basic, HRA, etc). The consultant doctors are paid a lumpsum fee. b) The employee doctors‟ agreement had a clause for leave entitlement unlike the FGC contract c) Employee doctors are not entitled for any other full time employment d) Consultant doctors were not employed by service rules but were expected to follow the code of conduct
With respect to the Scheme, the tax department had raised similar objections before the Gujarat High Court, which after considering the contentions of both, the tax department and the petitioner company had dismissed the petition thereon. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending before the Division Bench. The Delhi High Court, contrary to the order of the Gujarat High Court, has relied on settled judicial precedents and has passed the order sanctioning the Scheme.
DDIT vs. Safmarine Container Lines NV The Mumbai Tribunal in this case has observed that unless there is a specific language in the tax treaty which keeps the income from inland transportation in connection with international traffic outside the purview of Article 8 of the tax treaty, inland haulage charges would be considered as directly connected with operation of ship in international traffic and thus are not taxable in India.
Wockhardt Ltd. v/s ACIT – [2011] (Mumbai – ITAT) – The Tribunal has held that the services rendered by the non-residents should be in the nature of technical services and such services should make available technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how, etc., that enables the recipient of services to apply the said technology independently in its business, so as to fall within the purview of “fees for included services” as per tax treaty with USA, UK, Canada. Failing this the payments will not be subject to tax in India.
Penalty under s 271FA – Failure to file annual information return — The penalty under s 271FA is leviable if the assessee fails to respond to the notice for failure of filing annual information return — as held by Gujrat High Court in Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd v DIT(CIB); Special Civil Application No. 14675 of 2010, 22 April 2011
Shree Bhagawathy Textiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT – If the assessee has made a claim of deduction from this profit not enumerated in the clauses (i) to (ix) covered by Explanation to section 115JA, the assessment so completed based on the profit taken from the profit and loss account appropriation account submitted by the assesseee happens to be an apparent mistake which could having satisfied on the factual mistake committed by the assessing officer in the original assesment, rightly upheld the revised assessment issued under section 154 by reversing their earlier order.
