2010-TIOL-10-ARA-IT + ara story.pdf
Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association 'Technopromexport', (Dated : February 25, 2010)
The terms of contract and the documents go to show that the transaction of offshore plant and equipment was completed in the high seas and the property in goods passed to the NTPC outside India. As per clause 31 of General Conditions of Contract the ownership of plant and equipment supplied under the ownership contract No. 4520 shall pass on to NTPC upon lading on the ship and upon endorsement of the dispatch documents in favour of the NTPC. The consideration of sale of offshore was remitted to the applicant directly outside India by means of establishing L/C. Hence no portion of consideration for offshore supply was received or could be deemed to have been received in India and therefore not liable to tax. Further no income accrues or arises in India to the applicant attracting income-tax.
Held: no portion of consideration is received by the applicant in India. Further, no income accrues or arises in India to the applicant as all the transactions took place outside India. The materials were shipped outside India, the title and property passed outside India (on high seas) and the payment was received outside India and therefore the applicant is not liable to pay income-tax in India.: ADVANCE RULING;
2010-TIOL-155-HC-DEL-IT.pdf
CIT Vs Ilpea Paramount (P) Ltd (Dated : February 18, 2010)
Income tax - Sec 115JA - AO makes additions for provision for doubtful debts, provision for doubtful advances and provision for gratuity - Tribunal deletes the additions - held, in view of retrospective amendment in Sec 115JA vide Finance (No 2) Act, 2009 where clause (g) has been inserted in the Explanation contained in Sec 115JA(2), the sum set aside for provision for diminution in the value of any asset is not allowable - in view of the apex court decision in HCL Comnet Systems & Services ( 2008-TIOL-182-SC-IT ) the provisions for doubtful debt and advances are nothing but provision for diminution in the value of asset covered under Clause (g) of the said Explanation - Revenue's appeal allowed :DELHI HIGH COURT; 2010-TIOL-154-HC-DEL-IT.pdf
CIT Vs M/s Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd (Dated : February 17, 2010) Income tax - Sec 31(i) - Assessee has a press building which is used for business purpose - deals in printing and publicatin of magazines - the building was constructed in 1975 - repairs were carried out from time to time and the same was claimed as deduction during various AYs - assessee carries out major repair work and treats the same as current repairs - AO and CIT(A) treat the same as capital expenditure - Tribunal allows the assessee's appeal - held, there is no evidence which supports the Revenue's plea that a part of the building was demolished and a new structure was erected - since it is a case of current repairs, deduction is allowable - Revenue's appeal dismissed :DELHI HIGH COURT; 2010-TIOL-153-HC-AHM-IT.pdf
CIT Vs Advaitya Products Pvt Ltd (Dated : February 15, 2010)
Income tax - Sec 40A(2)(b) - Assessee is accused by the AO that it has been diverting profits through its flagship company to avoid paying tax - Assessee buys chemicals from the market and sells the same to its sister concern at a marginal profit - flagshi company in turn sells the same at a higher profit and claims adjustments against unabsorebed losses and depreciation - CIT(A) takes the view that the AO cannot dictate a businessman how to do business - there is nothing incriminating against the assessee - Tribunal agrees with the CIT(A) - held, in view of the Tribunal's detailed findings that the assessee is a marginal player in the market and its flagship company manufactures only a few of total product porfolio it sells, there is nothing to suggest that the assessee is diverting profits to avoid paying tax - Revenue's appeal dismissed:GUJARAT HIGH COURT; |