Profit on sale of shares through PMS to be taxed as capital gains & not business income – Karnataka HC
CIT v KAPUR INVESTMENTS (P) LTD [ITA NO.158/2014 & ITA NO.159/2014 dated 20.04.2015] KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessee Company is engaged in the business of finance and films. The assessee had invested money in shares through the Portfolio Management Scheme of M/s.Kotak Securities Limited. Since there were regular transactions of sale and purchase of shares, the Assessing Officer, for the relevant assessment years, held the same to be ‘business income’.
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee and held the profit to be taxed as capital gains. Against the orders of theCIT(A), the tax authorities filed appeals before the ITAT. In the first round, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A), which again held in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Tax Authorities. (more…)
CIT v GRUP ISM P. LTD. (ITA 325/2014 dated 29.05.2015) Delhi High Court
The assessee Company made payment of Rs 56,54,963/- to M/s. CGS International, UAE (“CGS International”) and Rs 37,76,863/- to M/s. Marble Arts & Crafts LLC, UAE (“Marble Arts & Crafts”) (aggregating to Rs 94,31,826/-). The AO noted that no TDS had been deducted by the assessee while making the payment to the said two foreign concerns and asked the assessee to justify the same. The assessee stated that the payments were made towards commission and that neither of these concerns had any business in India and therefore, it was not required to deduct TDS. However, the AO disallowed the amounts stating that the payment made was towards consultancy services and therefore, liable to TDS.
On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) held that the payment made by the assessee to the two UAE entities would not come within the purview of “technical services‟, as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) were not attracted in the assessee’s case. The CIT(A) also held that Article 14 of the DTAA with UAE is applicable in the facts of the case and that the AO could not have denied the applicability of the said Article on the sole premise that the two UAE entities are companies. Accordingly, since the remittances to such non-resident entities are liable to be taxed in the UAE, no TDS was required to be deducted. The ITAT dismissed Revenue’s appeal and confirmed CIT(A)’s order. (more…)
CIT v India Advantage Securities Ltd (ITA No 1131 OF 2013 dated 13.04.2015) BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The assessee had received dividend income of Rs Rs.1,40,859/- which was exempt from tax. The assessee had however, not made any disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income. The A.O. in the course of assessment proceedings therefore, computed the disallowance u/s.14A as per Rule 8D which come to Rs.48,73,483/- consisting of interest expenditure of Rs.39,00,174/- and other expenses of Rs.9,73,309/-.
In the first level appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that the interest expenditure had been claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s.36(1)(iii). It was also submitted that the shares had been shown as stock-in-trade in the books of accounts and, therefore, such stock-in-trade could not be taken into account while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D. The CIT(A) was satisfied by the explanation given and agreed that the disallowance under Rule 8D could be made only with respect to investment and not in stock-in-trade. (more…)
If earning rent income is the main object of a Company, it cannot be taxed as ‘Income from House Property’ – SC
CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD v CIT [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4491-4493 OF 2004 dated 09.04.2015] SUPREME COURT
The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its main object, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, is to acquire the properties in the city of Madras (now Chennai) and to let out those properties. The assessee had rented out such properties and the rental income received therefrom was shown as income from business in the return filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer held since that the income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income and thus it would be treated as income from house property. (more…)
DDIT v Serum Institute of India Limited ITA No.792/PN/2013 dated 30.03.2015) – Pune ITAT
Assessee during the financial year 2010- 11 made payments to non-residents on account of interest, royalty and fee for technical services. The assessee deducted tax at source on such payment in accordance with the tax rates provided in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with the respective countries. The tax rate so provided in the DTAAs was lower than the rate provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. In case of some of the non-residents, the recipients did not have Permanent Account Numbers (PANs). The AO treated such payments, as cases of ‘short deduction’ of tax in terms of the provisions of section 206AA of the Act. Section 206AA prescribes that if the recipient of any sum or income fails to furnish his PAN to the person responsible for deduction tax at source, the tax shall be deductible at the rate specified in the relevant provisions of the Act or at the rates in force or at the rate of 20%. The AO treated it as short deduction being difference between 20% and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted in terms of the relevant DTAAs. As a consequence, demands were raised on the assessee for the short deduction of tax and also for interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. CIT(A) granted relief holding that where the DTAAs provide for a tax rate lower than that prescribed in 206AA of the Act, the provisions of the DTAAs shall prevail and the provisions of section 206AA of the Act would not be applicable. (more…)
Anriya Project Management Services(P)Ltd. v DCIT (ITA No.1799/Bang/2013 dated 20.02.2015) – Bangalore ITAT
The assessee during the year did not earn any exempt income and therefore, did not make any disallowance under section 14A in its return of income. However, the AO made disallowance u/s 14A holding that there is increase in the investment of the assessee during the relevant assessment year resulting in increase of interest on total loans and thus interest bearing funds were utilized in investments earning exempt income. Therefore, he held that proportionate interest on investments earning exempt income is disallowable. (more…)
The Union Budget for the fiscal year 2015-16 was presented by the Finance Minister on 28th February 2015.
Apart from abolishing Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and officially warding off Direct Tax Code (‘DTC’), he also deferred the least liked GAAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rules) for two more years. He proposed to implement a roadmap for the reduction of corporate tax rate to 25% over a period of four years and also promised to phase out exemptions to give a fillip to the stagnant tax-base in India.
Most of the direct tax proposals in the Finance Bill, 2015 are effective from the financial year commencing on 1 April 2015, unless otherwise specified.
Expression “fees for technical services” in s. 9(1)(vii) explained with reference to “consultancy” services – SC
GVK Industries Ltd vs. ITO (Supreme Court)
The assessee paid fees to a non-resident (NRC). The obligation of the NRC was to: (i) Develop comprehensive financial model to tie-up the rupee and foreign currency loan requirements of the project.(ii) Assist expert credit agencies world-wide and obtain commercial bank support on the most competitive terms. (iii) Assist the appellant company in loan negotiations and documentation with the lenders. The assessee claimed that as the fees were paid for services rendered outside India, the same were not chargeable to tax in India and that the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS u/s 195. However, the AO and CIT rejected the claim of the assessee. The High Court (228 ITR 564) held that the said payment was not assessable u/s 9(1)(i) but that it was assessable u/s 9(1)(vii). The assessee claimed that s. 9(1)(vii) was constitutionally invalid as it taxed extra-territorial transactions. However, this claim was rejected by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 332 ITR 130. On merits, the matter was remanded to the Division Bench of the Supreme Court. HELD by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal: (more…)
No penalty even if the return is revised after issue of notice u/s 143(2) wherein no details are asked – Mum ITAT
Ms.Prema Gopal Rao v DCIT (I.T.A. No.8653/Mum/2011 dated 07.01.2015) Mumbai ITAT
The assessee filed original return of income on 10.09.2004 declaring total income of Rs.12,16,600/-, which included Long Term Capital Gain on sale of Shares of Rs.3,60,305. The case was selected for scrutiny vide issue of notice u/s 143(2). After the receipt of the said notice, the assessee filed revised return of income, wherein the assessee revised the Long term Capital gains upwards to Rs.14,87,789/-. The AO completed the assessment as per the Revised return of income by making certain disallowances. In the penalty proceedings, the AO took the view that the assessee has revised the return of income only after the enquiry was initiated by him and accordingly, levied penalty on the upward adjustment of long term capital gains.
CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty on the reasoning that filing of revised return of income was not voluntary, since it was filed after selection of the original return of income for scrutiny. (more…)
Allotment of equity shares in lieu of interest liability is a mode of payment allowable u/s 43B – Mum ITAT
Garware Chemicals Ltd. v DCIT (IT APPEAL NO. 7819 (MUM.) OF 2010 dated 21.01.2015) Mumbai ITAT
The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of various Petro Chemical products. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs. 14 crore u/s 43B of Income Tax Act. The AO found that the claim of the assessee u/s 43B was in connection with the discharge of interest amount payable to IDBI amounting to Rs. 14 crore by way of conversion of the same into equity shares of the assessee company. The AO held that in view of the Explanation 3C of section 43B, the claim of the assessee is not allowable and accordingly rejected. The CIT(A) also did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. v. DCIT (34 SOT 1). (more…)