This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. (Taxpayer) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1294 (Kol) of 2008) in which the SB held that, prior to financial year 2005-06 (assessment year 2006-07), derivative transactions in shares were covered by the definition of speculative transactions (ST). The SB further held that the exception to the definition of ST, from tax year 2005-06, in respect of eligible derivative transactions carried out on recognized stock exchanges, is not clarificatory in nature and does not have a retrospective effect for earlier years.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [2009-TIOL100-SC-IT] in the case M/s Liberty India (Taxpayer), in which the SC held that the receipts, by way of Duty Drawback and sale of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licence by the Taxpayer, do not form part of the profits ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking (IU), eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The SC further held that the Duty Drawback and sale of DEPB licence are incentives which flow from the schemes framed by the Government of India (G01) and do not have any direct nexus with the profits derived from the eligible IU of the Taxpayer.
Taxpayers in the infrastructure sector are often engaged in the execution of construction activities, which form a minor portion of a contract for the development of an infrastructure facility. This ruling provides guidance on whether a contactor simplicitor would be entitled to tax holiday under the ITL, in respect of the construction activities carried out by it. This ruling makes it clear that tax holiday would be denied to a person who merely executes any works contract/construction activity but does not own the infrastructure developed by it. The ruling also holds that the person who does not undertake development of the entire facility but develops only part of it would not be entitled to tax holiday benefit.
The second proviso to section 10B(1) cannot be construed to be a qualifying condition for claiming deduction. It just permits additional benefit which may be allowed provided domestic profit is within the limit prescribed in the proviso. On the panoply of this proviso deduction cannot be denied. The assessee would be entitled to partial deduction proportionately on export turnover in view of the provisions of sub-section(4) of section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [ITA No. 7315/Mum/2007] in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (Taxpayer) which held that, in the case of gifted capital asset, indexation benefit is available to a donee from the year of its acquisition by the previous owner. The SB adopted a purposive construction of the definition of ‘Indexed Cost of Acquisition’ (ICOA) by looking at the scheme of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), which seeks to grant the benefit of cost and holding period of the previous owner to the donee.
This ruling provides guidance that withdrawal from a revaluation reserve is permitted to be reduced from the book profit, computed under the MAT provisions, only in a case where the book profit was increased by the amount of revaluation reserve in the year of creation.
In this case, we noted that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any specific charge for which the penalty has been imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. He has not brought out whether the assessee has concealed the income or whether the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income.
The income by way of royalty accruing to the Japanese company is liable to be taxed in terms of Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Japan at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards.
Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue are that the defendant no.1 company was a tenant in property no. 3 Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi. This property was leased by defendant no.5 M/s H.G.Gupta & Sons (HUF) to defendant No. 1 Company for residence of its officers. The company by a resolution in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 27.2.1974 allotted this property to late Lala Hansraj Gupta in his capacity as CEO/Chairman of the company. Late Lala Hansraj Gupta was father of plaintiff no. 2 and defendants no. 2-4 and grandfather of plaintiff no. 1.
While the statute is to be interpreted on the basis of the; plain language or terms of the sections need for interpretation when the words of the statute are ambivalent and do not manifest the intention of the Legislature. As explained above the interpretation canvassed by the assessee will lead to unintended results if the purpose for which the section is introduced is kept in mind. Therefore in our option a purposive approach has to be adopted in interpreting the provisions of sec 80 RR.
