Ss. 2(1A), 115JB; A/y 2005-06; in favor of taxpayer: Profits arising on transfer of rural agricultural land amounts to agricultural income under section 2(1A). Such income cannot be included in the total income under section 10(1). Section 115JB provides that any income, listed under section 10, other than the ones listed in clause (38), shall be reduced from the book profit.
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
S. 9, Treaty with South Africa; in favor of taxpayer: – Z, a South African company, offered to promote and market the products of the taxpayer, an Indian company, on commission basis. Z will procure and negotiate orders and forward these to the taxpayer. The taxpayer will execute the orders directly and will receive the consideration in India. Z will render all services outside India and will not maintain any PE in India.
S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.
S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,
The assessee wrote off an amount as a “bad debt” in its accounts and claimed a deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO asked the assessee to furnish information as to the names and addresses of the debtors, copies of ledger accounts and efforts made to realize these dues. On failure by the assessee to furnish the information, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the onus to prove that the debt was a bad debt was on the assessee which had not been discharged.
The taxpayer was a banking company. In the current appeal, the Revenue’s grievance was that the CIT(A) had erred in directing that the written back ”provision of bad-debts” was not taxable as ”business income” especial y when a deduction of a sum was already al owed under Section 36(1) (vi a). The AO in the assessment order held that such write off of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed as deduction in the previous years and therefore the current write back should be taxable. The CIT(A), while deciding the case before him, held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, an amount of liability written back cannot be taxed as income.
The taxpayer was a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso Thermal Systems, Italy. The taxpayer was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain automobile products and selling the same in India and abroad. For the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer claimed that the royalty paid to its parent company as revenue expenditure. After perusing the details called for, the AO, relying on the decision of CIT vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad) held 25% of the royalty claimed as capital expenditure and disallowed the same.
The applicant is a US-based manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and is also an R&D-based service provider. It entered a cost al ocation agreement with its India-based group company. The applicant raises invoices on the Indian group company for services rendered based on the formula given in the agreement. The question before the Authority for Advance Ruling was: “Whether payments made for availing services listed out in the agreement are taxable in India and if taxable whether it is liable to TDS under Section 195 of the Act?”
Whether the rate prescribed by the Agreement between the assessee(s) and the Federation(s) is a composite charge, as submitted by the assessee(s), or whether the said rate is exclusively for ginning and pressing de hors the godown rent
