Five Judgements On Important Issues

ITO vs. Modipon Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

S. 50C: The consideration has to be determined on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of execution of sale deed and not on the basis of the circle-rate prevailing on the date of registration of the sale deed

It is manifest that u/s 50C, the value adopted by the stamp-valuation authority is deemed as the consideration for computation of capital gain. However, such valuation adopted by the stamp-valuation authority should be in respect of the transfer by the assessee, of the capital assets. This enhancement was beyond the control of the assessee (seller). It is also not the case of the revenue, that the buyer has given more than the consideration that has been accepted by the parties where they executed the agreement to sale.

 

Watson Pharma Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Transfer Pricing: Law on making adjustments for 'risk' and 'location savings' explained

The arm’s length principle requires benchmarking to be done with comparables in the jurisdiction of tested party and the location savings, if any, would be reflected in the profitability earned by comparables which are used for benchmarking the international transactions. Thus in our view, no separate/additional allocation is called for on account of location savings

 

ACIT vs. Indian Furniture Products Limited (ITAT Panaji)

S. 40(a)(i): Usance charges paid by the Assessee on import of raw material from foreign countries attracts tax in India u/s 5(2)(b) r.w.s. 9(1)(v)(b)

From reading the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation as reported in 314 ITR 309 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (reported in 261 ITR 113) it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not reversed the decision in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation, 261 ITR 113 (supra) on the finding that the usance charges are not interest u/s 2(28A) except where an undertaking is engaged in the business of ship breaking in view of explanation (2) to Sec. 10(15)(iv)(c) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 with retrospective effect

 

Minda Sai Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

(i) Unabsorbed depreciation of AYs 1997-98 to 2001-02 is eligible for relief granted by amended s. 32(2) in AY 2002-03 (ii) Judgement of a non-jurisdictional High Court has to be preferred over the judgement of a Special Bench of the ITAT (iii) In the absence of exempt income, s. 14A disallowance cannot be added to s. 115JB book profits even if assessee has accepted s. 14A disallowance in the normal computation

The assessee may have accepted the disallowance under section 14A but once it is a settled legal position, in the light of the law laid down in CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd (Del) that there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A unless there is corresponding exempt income and the assessee has no such exempt income, adjustment under clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JB (2) cannot indeed be made. The adjustment has to meet the tests of law and what cannot be considered to be ‘expenditure relatable to exempt income’ under the law, cannot be subjected to the adjustment either. There is no estoppel against the law. The mere fact that the assessee has accepted this disallowance affects that disallowance only and nothing more than that; it does not clothe such an adjustment, in computation of book profit under section 115JB, with legality

 

Manpreet Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

S. 22: Rent received from mobile phone company for use of terrace to install antenna is taxable as "Income from house property" and not as "Other sources"

The true test is whether the space rented out is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. The rent is not for the antenna but for the space for installation of antenna. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the rent is for the antenna, and, therefore, it is wholly irrelevant whether antenna is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. What is relevant is the space which has been rented out and, therefore, as long as the space, which has been rented out, is part of the building, the rent is required to be treated as “income from house property”.