ITAT RULINGS 2011
|
AIT-2011-52-ITAT |
AO has not doubted the tax residence certificate issued by the Netherland tax authority. Therefore in our view based on such certificate the assessee has to be treated as beneficial owner of royalty even if no agreements with repertoire companies regarding acquisition of rights by the assessee had been filed. Therefore the additional ground raised by the revenue is of no consequence as tax residence certificate is a sufficient evidence of the beneficial ownership as per the circular of CBDT which is binding on the AO. |
|
AIT-2011-53-ITAT |
CIT(A) was right in allowing the assessee’s claim of environment monitoring expenses of Rs. 1,49,34,929/- and community development expenses of Rs. 64,61,794/- treating it as expenditure incurred for the purpose of business. - CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to allow the expenditure on replacement of meters amounting to Rs. 75,32,88,942/- as revenue expenditure - CIT(A) was right in directing the AO not to allocate any head office expenses for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80 IA in respect of profits of Goa Unit and Samalkot Unit |
|
AIT-2011-55-ITAT |
action of the AO in taxing the interest granted to him on the refund of TDS made out of business assets as part of the business income. The AO held the same to be assessable under India Australia DTAA as business income. According to the AO, the said interest income is business income being directly connected with PE and taxed the same as per Article 7 and 11 of DTAA between India and Australia. - we find that there is an apparent conflict of decisions on the issue in dispute which needs to be resolved by constituting a Special Bench. We accordingly recommend the President for constitution of Special Bench for consideration of the issue whether the CIT(A) erred in treating the interest income as business income as against 15% as provided in para 6 of Article 12 of DTAA between India and the UK |
|
AIT-2011-56-ITAT |
where all income received by assessee were such from which tax was deductible at source, assessee could not be held to have committed default in payment of advance tax and consequently not liable to pay interest u/s. 234B. |
|
AIT-2011-61-ITAT |
the amounts received by the appellant from the Indian customers for the provision of international connectivity services outside India is royalty for the use of equipment and related services under Article 12(3)(b) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty and under section 9(1 )(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - in the alternative, the payment received by the appellant can be classified as royalty for use of 'process'. |
|
AIT-2011-62-ITAT |
the assessee has made payment to WIL of the salaries of the seconded employees. We have already concluded that it has not been established in any manner that these employees are those of the assessee company. By such secondment, it cannot be said that the assessee has rendered any service either to WIL or to the parent company. Thus, it is held that the assessee company does not have a PE in India as understood under paragraph no. 1 of Article 5. - As it has not been established that the seconded employees are those of the assessee, it cannot be held that services were furnished by the assessee either to WIL or to the parent company. Therefore, we are of the view that the branch office, though a fixed place of business, has not carried out the business of the assessee wholly or partly and it does not constitute the PE. |
|
AIT-2011-67-ITAT |
AO came to the conclusion that while income earned by the assessee from operation of aircraft in the international traffic for carriage of goods, passenger or mail is not liable to be taxed in India under Article 8 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between Netherlands and India, the receipts from providing technical services to other airlines in India is taxable.- the appeal is allowed. |
|
AIT-2011-84-ITAT |
where the same profit is eligible for deduction under both the sections viz., 80IB and 80HHE, the deduction u/s 80HHE will have to be computed by reducing the deduction allowed u/s 80IA/80IB of the Act. |
|
AIT-2011-90-ITAT |
mere because there was a surplus from the activity of micro financing, that by itself, cannot be a ground to say that the assessee does not exist for charitable purpose particularly when under the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, it has been clearly provided that the profit shall not be distributed amongst the members but shall be utilized towards its objects, and in the case of dissolution, any property remaining after meeting out the liability shall be transferred to the association having similar object. Therefore, the rejection of the registration of trust on this score is also unjustified. |
|
AIT-2011-95-ITAT |
when the applicant raised bills on Infosys and HCL, these customers preferred to make TDS considering the undersigned of provisions of IT Act, 1961. The applicant take a position that, the income arising from the sale of copy righted software licenses is not taxable in India. As such, the applicant filed the Return of Income by claiming refund of Rs. 2535599/-. The Assessing Officer has relied on 9(1)(i), 9(1)(ii), 9(1)(iii), 9(1)(iv) and 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Assessing Officer has rightly held sum of USD 464,123 equivalent to Rs. 20151292 (1 USD = INR 43.4180) shown as software consideration as royalty.” |
|
AIT-2011-112-ITAT |
Special Bench: what has been done by the Tribunal by the order dated 27.11.2009 is that by keeping in view the latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed that the observations made by it in earlier order dated 26.9.2008 are not more relevant and therefore, those observations have been withdrawn. According to the well established law, the order of the Tribunal has to brought in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court, even if the said decision is rendered subsequently to the pronouncement of the order. |
|
AIT-2011-118-ITAT |
Special Bench: Whether deduction under section 80 HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to be allowed in respect of export of software out of India to an assessee who is resident of USA - the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHE on the same footing as it is available to a resident person in India |
|
AIT-2011-124-ITAT |
even if the websites had materialized, the expenditure could not have been viewed as capital expenditure because the website is put up for the purposes of day-to-day running of the business and even if one were to view that some enduring benefit is obtained by the assessee, the benefit cannot be said to accrue to the assessee in the capital field. A website is something where full information about the assessee’s business is given and it helps the assessee’s customers in dealing with it. A website constantly needs updating, otherwise it may become obsolete. It helps in the smooth and efficient running of the day-to-day business. The expenditure would have been allowable as revenue expenditure; as a corollary, when the website did not materialize, the amounts advanced to the companies who were engaged to develop the websites, when they became irrecoverable, can be written off and claimed as loss incidental to the business. The loss is thus allowable as business loss in terms of section 28 of the Act. |
|
AIT-2011-131-ITAT |
ITAT has already held that upto insertion of Explanation vide Finance Act, 2007, the assessee was under bona fide belief for non-deduction of tax at source. The above findings would be squarely applicable so far as levy of penalty under Section 271C is concerned. |
CAclubindia
