The agitation by the revenue is that the assessee company was not entitled to deduction under section 10A as the CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had commenced manufacture, production of software prior to its registration as STPI and the STPI authorities had granted approval
The appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit availed on the garden maintenance service which are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or used in relation to the business activity and in this case the services used by the appellants are in relation to the business activity, he is entitled for Cenvat Credit.
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Infrasoft Limited v. ADIT [2009-TIOL-21-ITAT-DEL] has held that the amount received by the taxpayer company for transfer of the right to use the licenced software was not for the use of copyright in the software but only the software as such (which was a copyrighted article) and, therefore, could not be taxed as royalty but as business income under Article 7 of the India-UK Tax Treaty (the tax treaty).
The assessee earned long-term capital gains of Rs. 40.57 L which was not chargeable to tax u/s 54EC. As the said gains were credited to the P&L A/c, the assessee excluded the gains whilst computing “book profits” u/s 115JB in view of the Special Bench judgement in Sutlej Cotton Mills 45 ITD 22 (Cal) (SB) where it had been held that non-taxable capital receipts had to be excluded from book profits. The AO and the CIT (A) rejected the claim. On appeal by the assessee HELD dismissing the appeal:
It is quite common for the Revenue to treat such expenditure as capital in nature and administer depreciation allowance, only. An assessee would always put forth his argument that such replacement cost is only to maintain the existing level of efficiency of his manufacturing facility and would not result in any increase in its production capacity, thereby claiming it to be revenue in nature. In this context, it is quite pertinent to examine the current judicial thinking on this issue.
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (ITA Nos.87Del//2008, 4788/Del/2007 and 233/Ahd/ 2006) holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Mr. Bomi S. Billimoria vs. A.C Cir 23(1), Mumbai (ITA No.2120/Mum/1998) held that in case no payment has been made for acquiring shares under Employee Stock Option Plan, the gain on sale of said shares should not be liable to capital gains tax. As the date of exercise of options and date of sale is same and further, there is no difference between the sale price and the deemed cost of acquisition, in any case, it is not short term capital gains.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Triton Holdings Ltd. vs Dy. Director of Income Tax, Deharadun (ITA Nos. 2541 to 2559/Del/2009) held that the tax paid by employer on the behalf of employees should be considered as a non-monetary perquisite in the hands of the employees for the purpose of claiming an exemption under section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
The Delhi Bench of the Income – tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Tribunal), in the case of Vertex Customer Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer) held that exclusion of provision of doubtful debts from the operating expenses being a debatable issue and considering full disclosure made by the taxpayer; the taxpayer could not be held liable for penalty.
Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Maggronic Devices Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL-568-HC-HP-IT] held that payment made by the taxpayer to a Singapore company for outright purchase of plant and product knowhow cannot be considered as ‘Royalty’ within the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, no tax was required to be deducted while making payment to the Singapore company for acquiring such know-how outside India.
