Hycron Electronics vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
S. 80-IC: The benefit of “substantial expansion” is applicable to units which were in existence at the time of announcement of scheme i.e. in AY 2004-05. Assesses who installed new units during this period and are now going for substantial expansion are not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IC
If interpretation given by the assessee is to be accepted, the provision would become discriminatory for two classes of undertakings i .e. new units and old units. Because the old units would be entitled to 100% deduct ion on expansion for first five years and 25% thereafter whereas the new units would become entitled to deduction for 100% for first five years and again @ 100% on substantial expansion. Such discriminatory intention cannot be imputed to the Legislature.
Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT
Delhi)
S. 40(a)(i): As there is no requirement in the Act to deduct TDS on purchases made from Indian residents, imposing such a condition while making payments to non-residents violates the non-discrimination provision in Article 24 of the DTAA
Article 24 provides in unequivocal terms that for the purposes of determining the taxable profits of an Indian enterprise, any disbursements made to a Japanese enterprise shall be deductible in the same manner as if it had been made to an Indian resident. When we examine the TDS provisions, it is noticed that no provision under the Chapter XVII of the Act stipulates for deduction of tax at source from payment made for the purchases made from an Indian resident. This position when contrasted with purchases made from a non-resident, imposes liability on the purchaser for deducting tax at source under section 195, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. When we compare an Indian enterprise purchasing goods from an Indian party vis-a-vis from a Japanese party, there is possibility of an obvious discrimination in terms of disallowance of purchase consideration under section 40(a)(i) in so far as the purchases from a Japanese enterprise are concerned. It is this discrimination which is sought to be remedied by para 3 of Article 24
ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 69C: Law on treating purchases as "bogus" because the supplier is treated as a "hawala" dealer by the VAT authorities explained
The AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs.1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. AO made the addition as the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. It was a good starting point for making further investigation and taken it to logical end. However, the addition is not sustainable as the purchases had been made through A/c payee cheques that were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee ….
DIT vs. Lufthansa Cargo India (Delhi High Court)
S. 9: Retrospective amendments seeking to tax income of non-residents does not affect the “source rule”. The amendment makes no any difference to the non-taxability of payments made to foreign companies if the income accrues abroad
While no doubt, the explanation is deemed to be clarificatory and for a good measure retrospective at that, nevertheless there is nothing in its wording which overrides the exclusion of payments made under Section 9(1)(vii)(b). The Supreme Court clarified this in GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO 371 ITR 453 Thus, it is evident that the “source” rule, i.e the purpose of the expenditure incurred, i.e for earning the income from a source in India, is applicable
DCIT vs. Prescon Builders Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
Dept's practice of filing appeals in a routine manner and without application of mind deprecated as it causes inconvenience to taxpayers
At least the senior officer such as Commissioner of Income Tax should have carefully perused the record and CIT(A)’s order before granting authorisation. The very fact that the AO filed the appeals without even verifying the year, which was mentioned in the grounds of appeal, also indicates that the appeals were filed in a routine manner which causes lot of inconvenience to the tax payers and such a practice should be deprecated
No comments:
Post a Comment