The test for determining whether “manufacture” can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity, which is subjected to a process can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in trade as a new and distinct commodity; the word “production”,
M/s. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (“assessee/SMMP Ltd.”), engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery. While on one hand, SMMP Ltd. capitalized the said expenditure in its books of account and in its return of income, on the other, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure on the basis that such expenditure was merely incurred on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system.
Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that Outright purchase of plant knowhow in the form of technical / engineering data, design, drawings etc. is not royalty / fee for technical service, subject to withholding taxes
Secure Meters Ltd. („the assessee?) is engaged in the business of manufacture of energy meters. The Assessing Officer (AO) inter-alia disallowed expenses on the issue of convertible debentures on the basis that it was capital in nature. This was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal?), however, held that the expenses on issue of debentures was allowable as a revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
The applicant is a non-resident shipping Company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is in the business of shipping contracts for the transportation of cargo worldwide. During the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the applicant entered into a shipping contract for transportation of cargo from Indian ports to China. The amount of freight for transportation of cargo from the Indian port to a port outside India was invoiced and received by the applicant.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee by holding that the discount on stock options was notional in nature and was not deductible either in the year of grant or in the year when the option is exercised by the employees. In reaching the conclusion, the main consideration by the ITAT was the argument that the difference between market price and grant price is only a notional expenditure. Where ESOPs are granted by overseas parent companies and the difference between market price and grant price is charged to the Indian subsidiary, the allowability of expenditure would require further evaluation.
M/s. Converge Labs Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Converge’) is a 100% export oriented unit (‘EOU’) operating under the Software Technology Parks of India (‘STPI’) Scheme and is engaged in the development and export of software. Notification No. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 (‘subject Notification’), granted exemption from the Customs Duty to goods imported into India by a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme subject to certain specified conditions.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the CESTAT held that the software imported by Appellant was only modified packaged software and not „Customized Software? and would not be eligible to the exemption under the subject notification, which applies only to the Custom designed software. Hence, CESTAT upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. („the Appellants?) were engaged in the food and confectionary business. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sagar to permit them to run restaurants in the name of “Nirulas” as per the specified plans with regard to the location of the restaurant, area, interiors and other details. As per the terms of the agreement, it is the Appellants who decide the items that are to be sold by the restaurant, the method of preparation of the items, the quality and the prices of the items. The Appellants have even placed their employees in the restaurants to supervise the operations.
S. 70, 115AD; A/y 2005-06; in favor of taxpayer:- Taxpayer, a FII, earned short-term capital gains on sale of shares which it bifurcated as pre and post 30 September 2004 (pre and post STT), chargeable to tax at 30% and 10%, respectively under section 115AD. It also suffered short-term capital loss during both these periods. It set-off pre-STT short-term capital loss against pre-STT short-term capital gain and also post-STT short- term capital loss against left over balance of pre-STT short-term capital gain. The Revenue, however, al owed set-off of post-STT short-term capital loss only against post-STT short-term capital gain.
