Friday, 28 August 2015

Latest Court rulings


Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 54: Giving advance to builder constitutes "purchase" of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period
The word ‘purchase’ used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted pragmatically. The intention behind Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property within the stipulated period, which was taxable as long term capital gain while on the amount spent, relief should be granted. Principle of purposive interpretation should be applied to subserve the object and more particularly when one was concerned with exemption from payment of tax
 

Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs. DIT(E) (Delhi High Court)

S. 11: A charity is not entitled to exemption if it carries out activities not as per the objects. The fact that such ultra vires objects are also charitable is not relevant. Fact that CIT has granted registration u/s 12A does not preclude AO from examining compliance with s. 11. Incidental objects to attain the main object, even if significant in value, are permissible. Under principles of consistency, AO is not permitted to change view in the absence of a change in facts
The expression “such purposes” in s. 11 clearly refers to the purposes for which the property is held in Trust. Both the conditions i.e. the income should be derived from the property held in Trust for charitable or religious purposes and the condition that the income is applied for such purposes, are cumulative. The contention of the assessee that the expression “such purposes” would mean any charitable or religious purpose, even if the said purpose is not the purpose for which the property is held in Trust is not acceptable. The contention that as long as the Assessee applies the income from a property held in Trust for charitable or religious purpose, to any charitable or religious purpose, the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act would be available, notwithstanding that the purpose for which the income is applied is not the purpose for which the property is held in Trust, cannot be sustained as the same would be contrary to the plain language of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. In order for any income to be excluded from the scope of total income, the same must be derived from a property held in Trust for a charitable or religious purpose and must also be applied for that purpose
 

CIT vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 32: Customs duty paid in a later year can be capitalized in the year the obligation to pay the duty arose. Question whether it can be capitalized in year of import of the goods left open
The central question is whether the obligation to pay customs duty related back to the actual date of payment of customs duty or the date of import of the equipment and whether the said customs duty paid in the previous year relevant to the AY in question can be capitalized with reference to an earlier year. In Funskool (India) Limited (2007) 294 ITR 642 (Mad) the question was whether depreciation could be claimed on the additional customs duty paid in the previous year relevant to the AY in question although such customs duty was in respect of machinery that was imported and installed in an earlier year. That question was answered in the affirmative by the Madras High Court by following the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Atlas Radio and Electronics P. Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 207 ITR 329 (Guj) in which it was held that even though the sales tax was paid in a subsequent year, the liability to pay sales tax arose in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in which the machinery was purchased.
 

Infogain India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: Circumstances in which the Profit Split Method (PSM) has to be preferred over the TNMM for determining the ALP and method of allocation of profits between the assessee and the AE under the PSM explained
The Profit Split Method (PSM) first identifies the profit to be split for the associated enterprise from the controlled transactions in which the AEs are engaged. It then splits these profits between the AEs on an economically valid basis that approximates the division of the profit that would have been anticipated and reflected in an agreement, transaction or a residual profit intended to represent the profit that cannot readily be assigned to one of the parties. The contribution of each enterprise is based upon a functional analysis and valued to the extent possible by any available reliable standard market data. The functional analysis is an analysis of the functions performed (taking into account assets used and risk assumed) by each enterprise
 

Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Transfer Pricing: Transactions of providing support services to “Sogo shosha” entities cannot be characterized as trading transaction for purposes of comparison and determining ALP and the cost of sales cannot be included
The activities of purchase and sale i.e. trading involves risk and finance whereas in the activity of support services i.e. intending transactions the assessee has neither to incur any financial obligation nor carries any significant risk. The nature of two activities is absolutely different. The activities of trading i.e. purchase and sale are highly insignificant as compared to activity of support service which constitutes the core business activities of the assessee. The TPO and DRP are wrong in applying the trading margins ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee being a service provider the trading margins cannot be applied. Further, the TPO DRP have gone wrong in including the cost of sales in OP/TC ignoring the fact the value of the sale under no circumstances effects the activities of the assessee company, a service provider. For support services the correct method is the TNMM and the assessee has computed the same on the basis of OP/TC. The OECD guidelines also supports this contention that in TP study business transactions cannot be recharacterized. The support service or intending provided by the assessee company is nothing but a trading facilitation both in form and substance

No comments: