AAR Ruling: The amount received on account of assignment of rights, title, interest, obligations and duties in connection with the supply of products is not taxable in India in the absence of a Permanent Establishment and therefore, tax is not required to be withheld under section 195 of the Income tax Act while making remittance outside India [Laird Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (AAR No. 793/ 2008)(2010-TIOL-06-ARA-IT)].
An individual who resides in India for a period of less than 182 days during the previous year and is residing outside India for the purpose of employment, then irrespective of the fact of his presence in India for the period of 365 days or more during the preceding 4 previous years, he cannot be treated as a resident of India for the purpose of taxing his salary income
The perusal of the scheme of the Act posits that it is not always that any building or land appurtenant thereto are straightway liable to wealth tax. There are many exceptions contained in section 2(ea)(i)of the Act in this respect, such as ,house meant exclusively for residential or commercial purposes, which forms part of the stock in-trade or any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him or any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes etc.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The apex Court, in the case of Rajesh Kumar v .Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006)287 ITR 91 while considering the scope of Section 142(2A)of the Act
The assessee, a private limited company, provided for depreciation in its Profit & loss account by adopting the rates specified in the Income-tax Rules and computed its “book profits” u/s 115J on that basis. The AO recomputed the book profits by adopting the depreciation rates as per Schedule XIV to the Companies Act as those were lower than the income-tax rates.
Where an Association or Company trades with its members only and the surplus out of the common fund is distributable among the members, there is mutuality and the surplus is not assessable to tax as profit.
The finding of the Tribunal that 12.5% of net ad revenues is arms length price, was not challenged by the Revenue, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority. Money received from a holding company with whom the assessee does not have any trading or business transaction cannot be considered as trading receipt.
The assessee, a co-op credit society, was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. The assessee had surplus funds which it invested in short-term deposits with banks and govt securities. The question arose whether the said interest earned on the said deposits was “business profits”
ITAT Ruling: The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot exceed his limitation by following any method to determine the arm’s length price which is not authorized by the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Rules [CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2010-TIOL-68-ITAT-MUM)].
The issue before the SB was that, while computing the amounts eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non-eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking)
