Hyderabad bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Hyderabad Chemicals Supplies Limited v. ACIT (ITA No. 352/Hyd/2005) (Judgment date: 21 January 2011) held that as per the provision of Section 80-IA(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) profit from the eligible undertaking has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible undertaking even though they have been allowed to set off against other income in earlier years.
Learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to unconditionally grant full tax credit to the appellant f or the taxes deducted at source by Reliance Infocomm Limited of Rs 24,41,58,046 and, consequently, grant refund of the said amount as the entire addition made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). – learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to unconditionally grant credit, and, consequently, refund for a sum of Rs. 21,26,74,006, being the TDS deducted by the payer, in respect of which the original TDS certificates were submitted by your appellant with the AO during the course of assessment proceedings.
Applications for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand; Three aspects to be focused while dealing with the applications for dispensing of pre-deposit are: (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience, and (c) irreparable loss;
Dy.CIT, Pune Vs KRA Holding & Trading Pvt Ltd -The view of the assessing officer was consistent with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment (supra). The judgement in Castle Investment insofar as is material held that Section 1150(5) does not in any way restrict the allowability of the claim under section 80M. Under Section 80M what is claimed as a deduction is the dividend received by the company. Dividends declared, distributed or paid are not claimed as deduction under Section 80M though they constitute an outflow of funds from the company. Section 80M imposes a monetary restriction on the amount that may be claimed by way of a deduction by providing that the amount of claim cannot exceed the dividend distributed by the assessee by the due date.
On merits, s. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation in respect of know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The term “commercial rights” are such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying on business and commerce. “Commerce” is a wide term which encompasses many a facet. Accordingly, any right obtained for carrying on business with effectiveness comes within the sweep of meaning of “intangible asset”. Goodwill, being the positive reputation built by a person over a period of time is of “similar nature” as the other items enumerated in the definition of “intangible assets.
The Supreme Court last week settled different views expressed by the Bombay and Karnataka high courts and allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Income Tax, ruling that interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. In two appeals by the commissioner, against rulings in favour of Rolta India Ltd and Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, the Supreme Court delivered judgement in favour of the revenue department on the issue which arose, namely, interest under Section 234B can be charged on the tax calculated on book profits under Section 115JA. In other words, advance tax was payable on book profits under Section 115JA. Appeals by Nahar Exports and Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd were dismissed.
The Supreme Court held last week that an arbitrator is bound to give detailed reasons for his award and if he does not do so, the award will be invalid. In this case, State of Uttar Pradesh vs Combined Chemicals Co Ltd, the company agreed to supply zinc sulphate to the state agricultural department. However, when the government received a lower offer, it did not carry forward with the arrangement with Combined Chemicals.
The Supreme Court held recently held in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Versus Shakuntala & Ors that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation for road accident death even if the owner had sold the vehicle so long as his name is the official register. The previous owner might have handed over possession of the vehicle to the buyer, but he and his insurer continued to be liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy is in his name. In this case, Pushpa vs Shakuntala, the owner sold the truck to another person. But the vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company in the previous owner’s name. There was an accident killing three persons. Their dependents moved the motor accident claims tribunal against Oriental and the previous owner. The tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh high court held that the previous owner had no liability as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle. They ruled that the new owner alone was liable to pay. The dependents appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurance company argued in the Supreme Court that the liability should entirely be that of the new owner as the old owner had lost control of the vehicle after the sale. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court made the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount.
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Usha Rectifier Corporation challenging the levy of central excise on products which were used for research and development. The company manufactures electronic equipment. It bought components and assembled them for R & D. The company argued that there was no manufacture of any product which was marketable and therefore it was not liable to pay excise duty. It further contended that the equipment were used within the factory and it was not taken out of factory gates. The item was dismantled within the factory itself. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court ruled that “even if the equipment were used for captive consumption and within factory premises, considering that they were saleable and marketable, duty was payable on the goods.” Apart from capitalisation of the manufacturing process in the balance sheet, the company’s assertion that the equipment was meant to save foreign exchange by developing indigenous products, was an admission that the goods were marketable. Such products would be “deemed to have been removed from the factory premises for consumption,” the judgment said.
Service providers under licence from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) have to pay service tax and the liability is not that of AAI, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Sparkway Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise. AAI had entered into a licence agreement with the firm for collecting airport admission charges on behalf of AAI at Calicut airport. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified in 2004 that services provided at airports have to pay service tax. When the authorities demanded service tax from the firm, it refused to pay arguing that it was not permitted to collect service tax from the public and the duty was on AAI. The latter was the principal service provider and the assessee firm was only a collecting agent. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court stated that according to the licence agreement, the firm was obliged to pay all rates and taxes.
