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?
Mere tax residence certificate may not be the conclusive determinant of residential status of the Mauritius company. It may be essential to substantiate the residential status based on the place of effective management. Documents like board minutes etc would need to be authenticated by the government agency in Mauritius in order to be relied upon as evidence in case of dispute on place of effective management.
The Ruling recognizes that a partnership firm, albeit a fiscally transparent entity, can be regarded as an entity liable to tax and hence eligible for benefits under the DTAA. The Tribunal has also observed that the fiction of deeming the PE to be a distinct and separate enterprise is for the limited purpose of preventing the manipulations that may arise in intra-group transactions. The Tribunal has also held that income from services rendered offshore for Indian projects are taxable in India in the hands of the PE even if they are not directly connected to the PE by interpreting the “direct or indirect profits attribution rule” in the India-UK DTAA in a wide manner.
The High Court held that Section 65(105)(zzzze) does not relate to goods as such as it imposes service tax on services provided or to be provided in relation to information technology software. The same can be brought under Entry 97 of List 1 of Schedule VII which relates to the residuary powers of the Parliament to make laws. Thus, the Parliament has the legislative competence to make laws relating to it.
Any act, omission or concealment to be a fraud within the meaning of the Regulations need not be committed in a deceitful manner; intention to deceive is not an essential requirement of the definition of fraud as given in the Regulations; even making a false statement without believing it to be true is by itself an act of fraud.
The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 81 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court held that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organization would not be income which would be assessable to tax.
Genuineness of the gift transactions cannot be determined without looking into the human probability aspects, surrounding circumstances such as relationship of the donor and donee and if assessee fails to establish any of these facts, the gift transaction cannot be treated as genuine.
Credit for brought forward MAT is to be given from gross demand before charging interest u/s 234B. 2. Interest u/s 244A was allowable on the refundable taxes arrived at after giving credit of brought forward MAT from the gross demand.
