CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

11.01.2013 Views

Landmark Rulings capital asset and consideration from such land had to assessed as capital gain. The assessee contended that the sum did not amount to capital gain as sale was attributable to agriculture land, and such land was not coming either within the limits of any municipality or within the distance of 8 kms. from any notified municipality or urban area. The revenue took a stand that the subject land was located within 8 kms. of city’s Municipal Council. The High Court held in favour of assessee - It held that an agricultural land is not a capital asset; it becomes a capital asset when the subject agricultural land is located within the limits of municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee of cantonment which has a population of not less than 10,000. Definition of capital asset given under section 2(14) of the IT Act, 1961, covers the situation where the land is not only located within the distance of 8 kms. from the local limits, but also requires the fulfilment of the condition that the Central Government has issued a notification under this clause for the purpose of including the area up to 8 kms. from the municipal limits to render the land as a ‘Capital Asset’. Though it was contended by revenue that it was located within 8 kms. within the municipal limits of city municipal corporation, in the absence of any notification it could not be taken to be a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) and, therefore, the sale of agricultural land would not attract capital gains. 692 Allowance for additional depreciation prerequisites ‘existence of eligible business’ on date of purchase of asset In Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 184 (Chennai - Trib.), the assessee was engaged in the business of transport of spirit & molasses. During the year, assessee bought a wind mill. The assessee, in addition to the normal depreciation, claimed additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). AO August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 72 } disallowed the additional depreciation, as prior to purchase of wind mill assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. It held that before buying the wind mill, the assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacturing or producing any article or thing. The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It held that there are two separate situations for claiming additional depreciation one in which the acquisition of plant & machinery results in the establishment of a new industrial undertaking and the other in which plant & machinery is acquired for the purpose of enhancing the installed capacity of the existing business under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act. However, in any case the condition of engagement of the assessee in the business of manufacture or production should be satisfied, which was not there in the present case. Therefore, additional depreciation was disallowed to the assessee. First receipt of income is material for determining place of accrual; subsequent bank transfer is not relevant In Dr. Sarmishtha Mukherjee v. ITO [2012] 22 taxmann.com 24 (Kol. - Trib.), assessee sold her residential property in the UK through agents. Sale consideration was credited to her bank account in the UK. Subsequently, said amount was remitted to her in India. The CIT initiated revision proceedings under section 263 on the ground that assessment under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue, because capital gains on sale of a house property in UK by assessee were not brought to tax. According to the CIT, since sale was completed after the assessee returned to India and the sale proceeds of the house property were also received by her in India, the income was taxable in the hands of the assessee in India, even though assessee was, admittedly, a ‘resident but not ordinarily resident’. The AO was, accordingly, directed to bring to tax the capital gains.

The High Court held in favour of assessee - It was held that it is place of first receipt of income which is material for purposes of determining place of accrual under section 5(1)(i). Therefore, place of receipt of an income is place where it is received by assessee in its character of income; mere transfer of said amount thereafter from one bank account to another bank account cannot be considered as receipt of income, because one cannot receive income from himself. Therefore, income arising to assessee from sale of property in the UK could not be brought to tax in India. No Section 11 exemption if trust invests funds to buy shares of founder’s associated company In ITO v. KAS Foundation [2012] 23 taxmann.com 292 (Chennai - Trib.), main object of assessee-trust was micro-financing of rural people. Assessee borrowed ` 20 lakhs on interest from a bank and invested same in a private company ‘J’. Assessee was paying interest on money borrowed but received no benefit from company ‘J’. Assessee’s investment in company ‘J’ was found to be approximately 10 per cent of subscribed and paid-up share capital of ‘J’. Further, founders of assessee-trust had substantial interest in company ‘J’. On noticing it, the AO held that assessee had violated provisions of sections 13(1)(d)(iii) and 13(2)(h) and, therefore, was not eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It held that as per the facts of the case assessee borrowed money and instead of financing in rural areas he invested the same in the company ‘J,’ where the founders of the assessee-trust were having substantial interest, which was contrary to the object of which the registration was granted to the assessee under section 12AA. Apart from the above, the assessee was paying interest on money borrowed without receiving any benefit from ‘J’. It was evident that contrary to its objects assessee invested the borrowed } funds in private company ‘J,’ where the founders had a substantial interest. Therefore, the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(iii). The AO was correct in holding that assessee was not eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12. Supply of news by agencies to a newspaper co. is ‘professional service’ and invites section 194J and not section 194C In Asstt. CIT v. Ushodaya Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.), assessee-company was engaged in publishing of newspapers. It made payments to various news service agencies and deducted TDS under section 194C from said payments. During assessment the AO held that those payments would fall under section 194J and not under section 194C. Consequently, he raised demand to extent of difference of tax liable to be deducted under section 194J and that under section 194C. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the AO. The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It was held that work carried out by newspaper agents required professional qualifications and skills and, therefore, TDS had to be deducted from aforesaid payments under section 194J and not under section 194C. Therefore, payments made by newspaper company to news agencies were liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194J. In the result, the Tribunal upheld the demand. Income from transfer of shares by a promoter along with ‘not to compete’ agreement with the transferee is taxable as business income In Sumeet Taneja v. Addll. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 403 (Chd. - Trib.), assessee was a promoter/MD of a company ‘E’, which carried on business of running a call centre. Assessee had sold all his shares to another company ‘P’ August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 73 } } 693

Landmark Rulings<br />

capital asset and consideration from such land<br />

had to assessed as capital gain. The assessee<br />

contended that the sum did not amount to<br />

capital gain as sale was attributable to agriculture<br />

land, and such land was not coming either<br />

within the limits of any municipality or within<br />

the distance of 8 kms. from any notified<br />

municipality or urban area. The revenue took<br />

a stand that the subject land was located within<br />

8 kms. of city’s Municipal Council.<br />

The High Court held in favour of assessee -<br />

It held that an agricultural land is not a capital<br />

asset; it becomes a capital asset when the subject<br />

agricultural land is located within the limits<br />

of municipal corporation, notified area committee,<br />

town area committee, town committee of<br />

cantonment which has a population of not less<br />

than 10,000. Definition of capital asset given<br />

under section 2(14) of the IT Act, 1961, covers<br />

the situation where the land is not only located<br />

within the distance of 8 kms. from the local<br />

limits, but also requires the fulfilment of the<br />

condition that the Central Government has<br />

issued a notification under this clause for the<br />

purpose of including the area up to 8 kms.<br />

from the municipal limits to render the land<br />

as a ‘Capital Asset’.<br />

Though it was contended by revenue that it<br />

was located within 8 kms. within the municipal<br />

limits of city municipal corporation, in the<br />

absence of any notification it could not be<br />

taken to be a capital asset within the meaning<br />

of section 2(14) and, therefore, the sale of<br />

agricultural land would not attract capital gains.<br />

692<br />

Allowance for additional depreciation<br />

prerequisites ‘existence of eligible business’<br />

on date of purchase of asset<br />

In Shiva Cargo Movers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012]<br />

23 taxmann.com 184 (Chennai - Trib.), the<br />

assessee was engaged in the business of transport<br />

of spirit & molasses. During the year, assessee<br />

bought a wind mill. The assessee, in addition<br />

to the normal depreciation, claimed additional<br />

depreciation under section 32(1)(iia). AO<br />

August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 72<br />

}<br />

disallowed the additional depreciation, as prior<br />

to purchase of wind mill assessee was not<br />

engaged in the business of manufacturing or<br />

producing any article or thing. On appeal, the<br />

CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. It held that<br />

before buying the wind mill, the assessee was<br />

not engaged in the business of manufacturing<br />

or producing any article or thing.<br />

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It<br />

held that there are two separate situations for<br />

claiming additional depreciation one in which<br />

the acquisition of plant & machinery results<br />

in the establishment of a new industrial<br />

undertaking and the other in which plant &<br />

machinery is acquired for the purpose of<br />

enhancing the installed capacity of the existing<br />

business under section 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act.<br />

However, in any case the condition of<br />

engagement of the assessee in the business of<br />

manufacture or production should be satisfied,<br />

which was not there in the present case.<br />

Therefore, additional depreciation was disallowed<br />

to the assessee.<br />

First receipt of income is material for<br />

determining place of accrual; subsequent<br />

bank transfer is not relevant<br />

In Dr. Sarmishtha Mukherjee v. ITO [2012]<br />

22 taxmann.com 24 (Kol. - Trib.), assessee<br />

sold her residential property in the UK through<br />

agents. Sale consideration was credited to her<br />

bank account in the UK. Subsequently, said<br />

amount was remitted to her in India. The CIT<br />

initiated revision proceedings under section<br />

263 on the ground that assessment under section<br />

143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to interest<br />

of revenue, because capital gains on sale of<br />

a house property in UK by assessee were not<br />

brought to tax. According to the CIT, since<br />

sale was completed after the assessee returned<br />

to India and the sale proceeds of the house<br />

property were also received by her in India,<br />

the income was taxable in the hands of the<br />

assessee in India, even though assessee was,<br />

admittedly, a ‘resident but not ordinarily<br />

resident’. The AO was, accordingly, directed<br />

to bring to tax the capital gains.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!