1. Council
For The Indian School, Certificate Examinations Vs. Director General of
Income Tax, W.P. (C) No. 2184 of 2013, Date of Order: 23.05.2014, High
Court of Delhi
Due to generation of incidental surplus by educational institution – exemption u/s 10(23C) will not be denied.
The assessee
would be entitled to the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act,
however if it was found that the funds of the assessee had not been
utilized for its objects during the relevant year or had otherwise not
complied with the provisos to the Section 10(23C) of the Act, the
approval would be revoked at the end of the relevant year. Since, by
virtue of its nature, the petitioner is entitled to an exemption, the
same would also be available to the petitioner for the subsequent
year(s). However the question whether the exemption is liable to be
revoked would have to be considered at the end of the year after
reviewing whether the petitioner had complied with the conditions
imposed, inter alia, by the third proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act.
It is obvious from the aforesaid scheme that denial of exemption under
section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act to an Institution which exists solely for
educational purposes and not for profit, on account of non compliance
with the third proviso would be limited to the relevant years during
which the proviso has been violated.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Renoir Consulting Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax
(International Taxation), ITA Nos. 4323 and 4125 (Mum.) of 2011, Date of
Order: 11.04.2014, ITAT-Mumbai
If few places in India were at disposal of employees of foreign co, the same then deemed to have PE in India.
The
Commissioner (Appeals) has inferred of the hotel/s, where the assessee's
employees stayed, as also serving as their work place. The
communications between them and the head office, which is again a part
of their work, has again admittedly been carried out in India and, as
stated, from a place in the vicinity of the place of the stay. Two,
though to no effect, so that whether the communication has taken place
from the hotel room through the medium of internet using laptops - a
tangible asset/s, by the personnel, or similar facilities provided by
the hotel or by a retail outlet providing such services is of little
moment. Rather, the assessee's personnel are only working together in
conjunction with the GPI task force, assigned whole time on the project
in-as-much as the working of the task force in isolation or removed from
the assessee's employees, except perhaps sparingly, makes little sense
in the fitness and the scheme of things.
This is as the
two have to work in tandem, complimenting each other. In fact, even
working separately (as it in practice well be a combination of the two
forms of work organization or guided by work imperatives), again only
implies availability of a separate place/s at its disposal to the
assessee's team. Secondly, as is apparent from the modus operandi to be
adopted, the regular interviews, interactions, meetings, training
sessions and seminars, etc., both by the consultants and the principal
consultants, forming Tier I and Tier II of the assessee's teams deputed
on the project, and which are admittedly and principally at the GPI's
premises, is as much a part of the work undertaken by the
assessee-company as is the independent collection, collation, analysis
and review, etc. of the data/information being sought from the
organization during any phase of the project management. That thus some
place is at the disposal of the assessee or its employees during the
entire period of the stay in India is, thus, manifest and eminent and
follows unmistakably from the work nature/profile and the modus operandi
followed. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee clearly has a PE in
India during the relevant years.
(Please click here for judgment)
New User? 
Subscribe Now