Google India Private Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi)
& Article 12: The Google Adwords advertisement module is not merely an
agreement to provide advertisement space but is an agreement for facilitating
the display and publishing of an advertisement to the targeted customer using
Google's patented algorithm, tools and software. Google Adwords uses data
regarding the age, gender, region, language, taste habits, food habits, etc of
the customer so as to maximize the impression and conversion to the ads of the
advertisers. Consequently, the payments to Google Ireland are taxable as
"royalty" and the assessee ought to have deducted TDS thereon u/s 195 If we look into the advertisement module of Adword program stated herein above, then we will come to an irresistible conclusion that it is not merely an agreement to provide the advertisement space but is an agreement for facilitating the display and publishing of an advertisement to the targeted customer. If we look into the submission made by the learned AR, it is clear that the advertiser, selects some key words and on the basis of key words, the advertisement is displayed on the website or along with the search result as and when the customer selects the key words relatable to the advertisement. The module as suggested does not merely work by providing the space in the Google search engine, but it works only with the help of various patented tools and software. As we have analyzed detailed functioning of Adword program, it is clear that with the help of the search tool/software / data base, the Google is able to identify the targeted consumer/person as per the requirement of the advertiser
Lucent Technologies GRL LLC vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 254(2) Limitation
period: The amendment to s. 254(2) to curtail the limitation period for filing
rectification applications to six months from four years is prospective and
applicable to appeal orders passed after 01/06/2016 and not the orders passed
prior to 01/06/2016. The contrary view in Lavanya Land (Mum ITAT) is not good
law in view of K. Ravindranathan Nair (SC) We found that Tribunal in the case of Lavanya Land Private Limited vide order dated 25/04/2017 have held that since miscellaneous application was filed beyond a period of six months from the date of the order of the Tribunal which was sought to be rectified, the miscellaneous application was barred by limitation. We observe that while rendering the decision, the Co-ordinate Bench has not considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (Supra) where Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that right to appeal is vested in the litigant at the commencement of Lis and therefore, such vested right cannot be taken away and cannot be impaired or made more stringent by any subsequent legislation unless the subsequent legislation said so either expressly or by necessary intendment. An intention in interfere or impair a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by the express words or by necessary implication
Orbit Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c)/ 292BB:
"concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income" referred to in s. 271(1)(c) denote two
different connotations. It is imperative for the AO to make the assessee aware
in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as to which of the two limbs are
being put-up against him. The failure to do so is fatal to the penalty
proceedings. The argument that the assessee was made aware of the specific
charge during the proceedings is of no avail. S. 292BB does not save the
penalty proceedings from being declared void Notably, Sec. 292BB of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and is understood basically as a rule of evidence. The implication of Sec. 292BB of the Act is that once the assessee appears in any proceedings or has co-operated in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provisions of the Act that is required to be served has been duly served upon him in accordance with the provisions of the Act and under these circumstances, assessee would be precluded from objecting that a notice that was required to be served under the Act was either not served upon him or was not served in time or was served in an improper manner. In our considered opinion, the provisions of Sec. 292BB of the Act have no relevance in the context of the impugned examination of the efficacy of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Notably, the issue before us is not about the service of notice but as to whether the contents of the notice issued meets with the requirements of law. Therefore, the said argument of the ld. CIT-DR is also rejected
No comments:
Post a Comment