CIT vs. Farida Leather Company (Madras High Court)
195/ 40(a)(ia): Commission paid to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and is not liable for TDS. Insertion of Explanation 4 to s. 9(1)(i) and Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) by FA 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 and insertion of Explanation below s. 9 (2) by FA 2010, w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 makes no difference to the law
The commission payments to the non-resident agents are not taxable in India, as the agents are remaining outside, services are rendered abroad and payments are also made abroad. The contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon G.E.India Technology’s case, cited supra, in view of insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act with corresponding introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 195 (1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 is not correct. When the transaction does not attract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act
CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes P Ltd (Madras High Court)
28(iv): The waiver by the lender of even the principal amount of loan constitutes a “benefit” arising from business and is assessable to tax as income. Logitronics 333 ITR 386 (Del), Rollatainers 339 ITR 54 (Del), Mahindra & Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom) and Iskraemeco Regent 196 TM 103 (Mad) not followed
In our considered view, the waiver of a portion of the loan would certainly tantamount to the value of a benefit. This benefit may not arise from “the business” of the assessee. But, it certainly arises from “business”. The absence of the prefix “the” to the word “business” makes a world of difference
Dilip Manhar Parekh vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
54F: The demolition of a structure does not amount to a “transfer”. It is not correct to contend that Vania Silk Mills 191 ITR 647 (SC) is overruled by Grace Collis 248 ITR 323 (SC). Lower authorities cannot refuse to apply binding High Court judgements on the basis that the High Court has not considered a Supreme Court judgement
The demolition of the structure would not constitute a transfer of the assets in terms of Section 54(3) of the Act in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 191 ITR 647. In the above case, the Apex Court has held that when an asset is destroyed, there is no question of transfer taking place under the Act. The Apex court held that in terms of the Act that the words ‘Extinguishment of any right’ in Section 2(47) of the Act, does not include an extinguishment of right on account of destruction. It has to be an extinguishment of right on account of transfer. Thus, a destruction of assets when not on account of any transfer would not be hit by Section 54F(3) of the Act. Counsel for the revenue seeks to distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. (Supra) that the destruction in that case took place because of fire and hence it was involuntary. This distinction is of no consequence. In our view of the decision of the Apex Court in Vania Silk Mills (Supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…