How can the sale prices to wholesale agents in two different countries be comparable, when the sale price to the final user in the one country is less than the sale price to the whole sale agent in another country, unless adjustment for the same has been considered; thus, the adjustments merely for volume offtake, credit period and credit risk, though material are not sufficient to make the sale price to AE in Thailand comparable with the sale to unrelated party in Vietnam
No appeal lies to SC u/s 10 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 against interlocutory orders passed by Special Court
Payment made to Avaya International Sales Ltd., Ireland (ASIL) in respect of activation charges is a payment for buying a standard product/software. The payment made to ASIL can neither be said to be as ‘Royalty’ nor is covered under the provisions of ‘Fees for Technical Services’. The assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to ASIL as the income of ASIL is not liable to tax in India for the above payment.
Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. CIT (Madras HC) – In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Electricity Board (cited supra), after passing of an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act gets merged with the said order under Section 143(3) of the Act and the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act does not any more independently survive for rectification by the Assessing Authority under Section 154 of the Act.
Income tax – Sec 32(1) – Assessee-company claims depreciation on trucks registered in the name of Director – Revenue disallows – Tribunal allows the appeal – held, since the vehicles have been purchased in the name of the Director only for convenience sake and rents have been credited to the company’s account and even tax has been paid on the same, depreciation cannot be disallowed now as it is in effective possession of the company – Revenue’s appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;
The Assessing Officer added the difference between purchase price disclosed in the sale deed and purchase price of the property adopted for the purpose of paying the stamp duty to the total income of the assessee as income from unexplained sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition by holding that section 50C is a deeming provision for the purpose of bringing to tax the difference as capital gain.
The assessee had received interest free deposit in respect of shops given on rent. The Assessing Officer added to the assessee’s income notional interest on the interest free deposit at the rate of 18 per cent simple interest per annum on the ground that by accepting the interest free deposit, a benefit had accrued to the assessee which was chargeable to tax under section 28(iv).
In a case where the partnership deed does not specify the remuneration payable to each individual working partner but lays down the manner of fixing the remuneration, would the assessee- firm be entitled to deduction in respect of remuneration paid to partners?
The assessee filed his return of income which contains a claim for carry forward of losses a day after the due date. The delay of one day in filing the return of income was due to the fact that the assessee had not reached the Central Revenue Building on time because he was sent from one room to the other and by the time he reached the room where his return was to be accepted, it was already 6.00 p.m. and he was told that the return would not be accepted because the counter had been closed.
Infotech Software Dealers Association (hereinafter referred to as “the ISODA” or the “Petitioner”) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act having its headquarters at Mumbai. Members of ISODA are engaged in the business of reselling of computer software products falling under 3 categories – (i) Shrink Wrap Software; (ii) Multiple User Software/Paper License and (iii) Internet Download. The ISODA filed the subject petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 65(1 05)(zzzze) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (as amended by Finance No.2 Act of 2009) (hereinafter referred as “the Finance Act”) in relation to the business activities of the members of the Petitioner as: • Null and void; • Ultra vires and unconstitutional of the provisions of Article 245, Entries 92C and 97 of List-I, Entry 54 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; and • Contrary to provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions raised the following three questions: • Whether software is goods? • Whether supply of software pursuant to the End User License Agreement is to be treated as sale or service? • Whether the Parliament has the legislative competency to levy Service Tax on Information Technology Software Services?
