The Bombay High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to reconsider the applications of Bollywood actor Danny Denzongpa alias Tshering Pintso for tax exemptions on dividends and interests since 1997-98 under section 10(26AAA) as incorporated in the Finance Act, which entitled tax exemptions to Sikkimese nationals on dividends and interest on securities. A division bench of the high court has set aside the order passed by the income-tax commissioner rejecting nine applications filed by Denzongpa seeking the exemptions as per the amendment to the Finance Act in 2008.
In this judgement, after hearing the matter, vide its order dated 8 September, 2010 running into 196 pages, the HC has dismissed the writ petition filed by VIH, holding that the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities under section 201 of the Act cannot be held to lack jurisdiction.
Appellant(s) are the distributors of imported prepackaged shrink wrapped standardized software from Microsoft and other Suppliers outside India. During the relevant assessment year(s) appellant(s) made payments to the said software Suppliers which according to the appellant(s) represented the purchase price of the abovementioned software. The ITO(TDS) held that since the sale of software included a license to use the same
Bhagwan Sri Rama Viraj man & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors. The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
The advertisement reimbursement would definitely form a part of the operating profits of the assessee and would have to be taken into account for purposes of transfer pricing analysis.
The assessee, a co-op bank, filed a return for AY 2001-02 showing a loss of Rs. 15.94 crores. As the return was belated, the assessee filed an application u/s 119(2)(b) with the CBDT requesting condonation of delay and for being allowed carry forward of loss. The principal ground on which condonation was sought was that there was a delay in appointment of the statutory auditor by the Registrar and a consequent delay in preparing the s. 44AB tax audit report. The CBDT rejected the application on the ground that the reasons were general in nature and there were no exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the assessee to file the return. It was also stated that the assessee was operating for several years and was aware of its obligation to get the accounts audited and to file the return within the due date. The assessee challenged the rejection of the application. HELD upholding the challenge: (i) The power to appoint statutory auditors is that of the Central Registrar and that was done on 3.9.2001. The Registrar appointed Chartered Accountants to be statutory auditors in place of the Departmental Auditors. This change was made in respect of all societies. Therefore, the assessee cannot be blamed for the delay in carrying out its audit as the same was beyond its control. The contention of the Revenue that the departmental auditors had started the audit in the year 2000 and it was for the assessee to get the audit expedited cannot be accepted. Though the departmental auditors might have started the audit, it appears that pursuant to the said policy decision that was taken, the departmental auditors were replaced by the Chartered Accountants to be the statutory auditors. Therefore, the reason given for delay deserves to be accepted; (ii) It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities.
CIT Vs. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H) – On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.
M/s Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Assessee) has received an order to build bus bodies, by an Indian exporter (Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd.) in accordance with an export order placed on the Indian exporter by and specifications provided by the foreign buyer (Lanka Ashok Layland Ltd., Colombo).
The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as question involved in the present case is of lack of jurisdiction on admitted facts. In the present case, the petitioner furnished all the information and raised a dispute of taxability relying upon the judgment in Kone Elevators (India) Ltds case (supra). In such a situation there could be no question of attempt at tax evasion. Invocation of jurisdiction to impose penalty at the Information Collection Centre was not called for.
The SC has reversed the view of the Bombay High Court which had held that the term business or commercial rightsand licence are referable to a class of intellectual property rights such as know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks etc. The SC has held that the business or commercial rights need not be similar to a licence or franchise or other classes of intellectual property rights to be considered as an intangible asset.
