IN a remarkably interesting ruling, involving the IT giant Infosys Technologies, the Apex Court has held that every benefit received by a person is not taxable as income unless the Legislature makes the same taxable. For period prior to 2000, there were no provisions in the Income Tax Act to tax ESOPs. As regards the TDS, it noted that ESOPs were not taxable during the lock-in period as the value of non-transferable shares (perquisite) was not ascertainable. As regards the Clause (iiia) of Sec 17 the SC held that it was not clarificatory as argued by the Revenue and very much prospective if one goes by the wordings used in the Clause and the explanatory memorandum of the Finance Act, 1999.
The rigour of sec.43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service-tax because of two reasons. Firstly, the Assessee is never allowed deduction on account of service tax which is collected on behalf of the Govt., and paid to the Govt. accordingly. Therefore, a service provider is merely acting as an agent of the Govt., and is not entitled to claim deduction on account of service tax. Hence, on this account alone addition under sec.43B could not be made
As per sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 40 which has been substituted by Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1st April 1989 to extend the applicability of the clause also to the payments made to non-resident of royalty, fee for technical services or any other payment chargeable under this Act. Now, the inclusion of the words ‘any another payments’ in the amended provision has widened the scope of the meaning of the word payment and so the payments made by the assessee through M/s Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands to the non-residents in respect of mobilization and demobilization charges amounting to Rs. 8,65,57,909/- under consideration is covered within the provision of section 40 (a) (i) of the Act.
RBF Rig Corpn. LIC (RBFRC) v. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) -Section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Perquisite, not provided by monetary payment – Assessment year 2004-05 – Whether payment of tax on behalf of employee at option of employer is a non-monetary perquisite fully covered by sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of section 17 and, thus, exempt under section 10(10CC) and is not liable to be included in total income of employee – Held, yes – Whether taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee and thereafter, tax on such perquisite is not to be added again – Held, yes
Tarun Ghia Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others The Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant in practice and claims to be qualified to undertake the audit of societies as contemplated under Section 81 (1)(a) and 81(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He was on the panel of auditors maintained by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies – Respondent No.3. According to the Petitioner the powers of empanelment, removal and other matters relating to functioning of the Chartered Accounts in contemplation to those provision was arbitrary and discretionary; and the Respondents were acting in a very unfair manner. On these 2 premises the Petitioner prayed for an issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.3 to produce the entire records in connection with the list of societies with basic details like turnover, working capital, audit fees of the previous year and the Respondents be directed to prepare proper guidelines introducing transparency and fairness in empanelment of the auditors for awarding of auditing work in the co-operative societies. The Petitioner has further prayed that Respondent No.3 should publish the list and the consideration for empanelment should be objective and not supported by extraneous criteria.
It is the legal owner (i.e. the assessee in the case before us) who is liable to the wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets licensed/leased by him for a term of less than twelve years as laid down in section 269UA(f). However, the legal owner shall not be liable to wealth-tax levy on the value of specified assets leased by him for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act. It is in fact the person acquiring any rights (i.e., lessee) in or with respect to any building under a lease for a term of not less than twelve years by virtue of any such transaction as is referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act who shall be deemed to be the owner thereof in terms of the provisions of section 4(8)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act.
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax, 1961 – Penalty – For failure to get accounts audited – Assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 – Whether section 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken – Held, yes
The Hon’ble Court held that the fact that parties were in discussions on the issue of payment for the extra work items undertaken by the Appellant and the exact work to be executed where-after the Respondent submitted its final bill followed by the No-Claim Certificate would be “clear cut evidence” to show that there was an accord on all disputes between the parties which was arrived at after protracted correspondence and claims in respect of the disputes settled in the accord could not have been raised and the accord reopened.
TR-6 challan is the most primary document evidencing payment of duty/tax. No doubt the TR-6 challan was not included in the list of specified documents. It was included by virtue of Notification No.28/2005-CE(NT) dated 7/6/2005. I find that this is an inadvertent omission, which was rectified by issuing the said Notification. This is so because any duty payment documents is related to, and based on TR-6 challan which is the source document. Similar view has been taken up by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of National Organics Chemical India Ltd., reported in 2004 (178) ELT 331 (Tri.). The appellant’s case is squarely covered by this judgement. I, therefore hold that disallowance of Cenvat credit is not correct. Consequently interest and penalty also do not sustain. Order-in-original is liable to be set aside.
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
