Simply because some incidental activity of the assessee is revenue generating, does not provide any justification to hold that it is tainted with “commerciality” and reaches a point where relationship of mutuality ends and that of trading begins.
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
The application of 15 per cent rate of tax on the amount shown in the return of income would not fall under the category of determination of tax payable on the returned income on the basis of return of income under section 143(1) when the assessee had categorically stated in the note enclosed with the return of income that the returned income was not in the nature of `royalty’
word `property’ has been used by the legislature in a wider sense so as to include more than one house. However, the right to compute the ALV at nil in respect of self occupied property is restricted to one house even thought he property owned by the assessee may consist of more than one house.
Speculative transaction is a transaction in which contract for purchase and sale of any commodity is settled otherwise than by actual delivery. It is not in dispute that in the case of transaction in derivatives, the transaction is always settled otherwise than by actual delivery.
Insertion of Rule 13E in the I.T.A.T. (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, vide Notification No. GSR 389E dated 3-6-2009 prohibiting Retired ITAT President, Vice-President and members to appear before ITAT. No doubt the Ministry, as it were, built a nice palace so that all of us in the ITAT could lead a happy and blissful life hereafter
The assessee made payments to a foreign company for purchase of ‘shrink-wrapped’/ready-made software without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 (1). The AO held that the payments were chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign company as “royalty” u/s 9 (1) (vi) and that the assessee was liable u/s 201 for non-deduction of tax and interest thereon.
The fact involved in the present case is that the assessee is a branch of Samsung Electronics Co Company Limited, Korea, engaged in the development, manufacture and export of software for use by its parent company, i.e., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Korea. The assessee develops various kinds of software for telecommunication system for office appliances, for computer systems and for mobile devices etc.,. The software developed by the assessee is for in-house use by the parent company.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court (HC) [ITA No. 2808 of 2005] in the case of Samsung Electronics and others (Taxpayers). The HC held that any payment resulting in any income in the hands of a non-resident would be subject to withholding tax under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). Unless an order is obtained from the Tax Authority for withholding tax at a lower rate or for not withholding tax, a taxpayer would need to withhold tax on the income at the applicable withholding tax rates, even if the income may not be taxable in the hands of the non-resident.
The main issue involved in these appeals is whether the loss shown by the assessee is assessable under the head income from business as claimed by the assessee company or under the head income from other sources as held by the authorities below.
