Taxation

dadibattini (Querist) 16 May 2013 This query is : Resolved
My Appeal to all of you!!
My colleague is appearing for exam this coming Monday 20.5.2013. Kindly help in solving the following questions:

1) The assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the A.Y. 2004-05, for availing benefit U/s. 10A, the assessee was required to realise the export proceeds by 30-9-2004. The assessee received export proceeds of Rs. 2.20 Crores in December, 2004. On 7-10-2004, the assessee had made an application to the RBI seeking extension of time for realisation of the export proceeds. Reminders were sent on 24/1/2007 and 30/3/2007. By its letter dated 25-4-2007, the RBI confirmed the realisation of the amount under the provisions of FEMA. There was no separate approval under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of the said amount of Rs. 2.20 crores u/s. 10 A of the Act. Was Assessing Officer justified in rejecting the Assessee’s claim for the benefit of Sec. 10A? Please advise the Assessee.
2) The assessee company was carrying on business of import and sale of scientific instruments. It purchased premises at Nariman Point, Mumbai in 1982 and had its regional office there. In November 1987, the assessee gave the property ( office premises) on leave – and – licence basis to Citibank. The rental Income so received was offered to tax by the assessee as’ business profits’. The Assessing Officer assessed the income as ‘income from house property’. Please advise the assessee.
3) The assessee – company was engaged in the manufacture of watches and was selling the same under its patent name ‘Titan’. An associate company of the assessee, incorporated in Singapore, was engaged in promoting the sales of “Titan” watches in the Asia Pacific region. The assessee from the business point of view got its patent name registered in Hongkong through “C”, a firm of professionals of Hongkong and paid to ‘C’ certain fees for technical services rendered by it. The assessee claimed that since the services had been utilised in its business abroad, the payment made to ‘C’ was covered in exception provided in section 9 (1) (vii) (b) and, hence, it was not required to deduct tax at source in respect of the payment made to ‘C’. Can the payment made for registration of a patent outside India for the purposes of exports, be considered as for the purposes of exports, be considered as for the purposes of making or earning income from a ‘ Source outside India’?
4) The assessee is the Airport Authority managing the airports in India. The airport land belonged to the assessee. The scheme was formulated by the Government for removal of encroachers and their rehabilitation. The assessee incurred expenditure towards removal of encroachments in and around technical area of the airport for safety and security. The assessee wants to treat the rehabilitation amount paid to the encroachers as revenue expenditure, while the Assessing Officer wants to treat the same as Capital Expenditure? Please advise the assessee.
5) The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar in India. It engaged the services of KPMG, Brazil (KPMG) to advice and assist it in acquisition of sugar mills / distilleries in Brazil. In connection with the services rendered by KPMG for the said purpose, the assessee had made payment to KPMG. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment made to KPMG. According to him the amount received from the assessee by KPMG was in the nature of fees for technical services rendered in terms of section 9 (1) (vii) (b). Please advise the assessee.

Follow Query

Report Abuse