section 80-IA of the Act. As per the provisions of section 80-IA of the Act, the deduction was allowed subject to the taxpayer getting its accounts audited by an eligible accountant and furnishing a report of such accountant with the Revenue Authorities. The taxpayer for the relevant AY, got his accounts audited from an eligible accountant, however, he failed to furnish the report along with the ROI. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO held that the deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed unless the audit report has been furnished along with the ROI.
India-Thailand tax treaty.
two-wheelers, was appointed as a global partner of cricketing events organized by International Cricket Council (“ICC”). The taxpayer was granted certain sponsorship rights such as right to advertise on billboards at the venue, advertising space in official brochure / website etc in lieu of agreed consideration. The AO, while passing the draft assessment order, treated the payments made for above rights as royalty under the provisions of the Act and India-Singapore tax treaty. The AO held that since the taxpayer had not withheld taxes, the expenditure should be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the taxpayer filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The DRP, in its directions, confirmed the action of the AO and observed that since the payments made by the taxpayer were on account of use of ICC marks, event marks, and official status marks, the same would constitute royalty.
(313 ITR 267) (Delhi HC) and DIT v Sahara India Financial Corporation (2010)
(189 Taxman 102) (Delhi HC), held that the payment was made for advertisement and publicity of the brand name of the taxpayer and for promotion of its products during the cricketing events of ICC. If, the proprietary trade mark or logo of ICC was put alongside the taxpayer’s logo, it was only incidental to the main object of the agreement ie advertising.
taxpayer-Revenue Authorities to assail that amount. Further, the Settlement Commission was conscious of the requirement of true and full disclosure by the taxpayer and this requirement was considered as fulfilled by the Settlement Commission before arriving at the impugned settlement. It was also observed by the HC that section 32E(b) provides that no application for settlement shall be made unless a SCN for recovery of duty issued by the Central Excise Officer has been received by the applicant. The HC also considered section 32E(2) which states that the assessee shall not be entitled to make an application before the expiry of 180 days from the date of the seizure, where any excisable goods, books of accounts or other documents have been seized. In the present case, the taxpayer had filed the application for settlement after the expiry of 180 days from the date of seizure. In this regard, the HC held that both these provisions are directory in nature and need not be obeyed or fulfilled exactly. The HC also held that the aforesaid provisions are to be interpreted harmoniously, which is essential to ensure that neither one of them is rendered repugnant. On this basis, the HC held that the application could have been made after 180 days of the seizure or after receipt of SCN, whichever occurred earlier.
pre-deposit was waived and stay was granted.
pre-school coaching and training centre or any institute or establishment which issued any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force, was excluded from the meaning of commercial training or coaching centre under section 65(27) of the Finance Act.