THE Supreme Court today simply dismissed the much-hyped USD two billion Vodafone capital gains tax case at the admission stage itself. Before rejecting the SLP, the Bench asked the assesee – why did they not furnish the copy of their original agreement to the Court and also to the Revenue? In reply the assessee spoke about their delayed offer and promised to make the same available any time.
Everything revolves around clause (iii) of section 32(1). The said clause provides that in case any of the assets specified therein on which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i), is sold, discarded, demolished, and if the monies payable fall short of the w.d.v, such shortfall will be allowed
38. First and foremost rule of construction of interpretation is that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, the said enactment cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and when amendment relates to a procedural provision results into creating a new disability or obligation and which imposes new duty in respect of transactions already completed,
In the instant case, the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 98,000 was received by him as gift from `M’ on account of love and affection by two drafts. Indeed, the amount of Rs. 98,000 was credited in the account books of the assessee for the previous year. `M’ appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and his statement was recorded
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. In our considered view, the gifts so received by the assessee or his grandsons could not be said to be genuine. The reasons are that in all these cases, the donors are persons of low income group and do not have any capital or asset. There is no evidence on record to show how they build up capital.
When the legislature has categorically defined the purposes like religious and charitable and if the assessee-society is engaged as per their objects in mixed activities, which are partly charitable and partly religious, it cannot be said that section 11(1)(a) does not contemplate such situation.
THE use and spread of software application has been phenomenal in India. So is the case with the tax treatment of receipts resulting from either sale of software or licensing of software programmes. What is treated as royalty by the Revenue is actually reckoned as a plain sale of copyrighted article by the assessee. Thus there is nothing new about this dispute as decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the Motorola case
12.2 One can see very clearly that the clause (ii), introduced in section 32(1), w.e.f.01-04- 1999, not only extended the benefit of section 32 to the `intangible assets’ but also gave therein an `inclusive’ definition of the `intangible assets’, for this purpose. 15.4 It becomes clear from the above discussion that capability to have a market value, assignability
We have gone through the contracts entered into between the assessee and its clients. As per the contract with TCS, Focus would provide technical assistance of choice personnel to work on the computer software development, implementation and maintenance of specific project to be allocated by TCS.
Normally vehicles changed hands from the manufacturer to the customers through the authorized dealers and the customers can arrange finance independently through any other person; if the third party has arranged the finance to the buyer of the vehicle, the services of the said third party would undoubtedly come under the business auxiliary services.
