Page 60 - Corporate_Professional_Today
P. 60

Weekly  reVieW


           The assessee-company had entered into an IPL    time of making assessment, assessee did not
           Franchise Agreement with Board of Control       disclose existence of PE of its parent company
           of Cricket (BCCI) for Franchise rights of IPL   in  India  and as a result, Assessing  Officer
           team, named as Kolkata Knight Riders (‘KKR’).   could not examine as to whether tax was
                                                           deductible at source while making remittances
           Assessing Officer (AO) observed that as per
           the agreement between the assessee and BCCI,    to parent company located abroad, it was to
           the assessee was to pay annual franchise fee    be regarded as a valid ground for reopening
           for the period 2008-17.                         of assessment.
           AO held that the Franchise fee was a part             Order by SetCom was conclusive in
           of the consideration which was paid by the            nature & couldn’t be reopened in
           assessee for owning the IPL team and not as
           a fee for playing the IPL matches, therefore,         any proceedings under any law
           the same was a capital expenditure.
                                                           Shree Ganpati Synthetics (P.) Ltd. v.  Asstt.
           The Mumbai ITAT held that the payment of        CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 46 (Amritsar -
           the Franchise fee by the assessee as per the    Trib.)
           terms contemplated in the franchise agreement
           enabled it to participate in the tournament     Assessee filed application before Settlement
           for the subject years and earn revenue from     Commission under section 245C. Settlement
           the same.                                       Commission  passed  an  assessment  order  of
                                                           assessing income at certain amount under
           The payment was in the nature of recurring      section 245D(4). However, CIT(A) upheld
           annual payment which was paid to facilitate     order passed by Assessing officer (AO) and
           participation in the IPL and operating the      assessed income at amount determined by
           team only for the year for which the payment    AO before passing of order by Settlement
           was made.                                       Commission.

           Since payment of said fee was restricted        ITAT held that the order passed by Settlement
           only to year for which payment was made,        Commission under section 245D(4) was
           it could safely be concluded that by making     conclusive as to matter stated therein and
           such payment there was neither a creation       no matter covered by such order could be
           of an asset or generation of a benefit of       reopened in any proceeding under this Act
           an enduring nature in hands of assessee.        or under any law for the time being in force.
           Therefore, assessee’s claim for deduction of
           same as revenue expenditure under section             Income earned on sale of agriculture
           37(1) was to be allowed.
                                                                 land after levelling it isn’t agricultur-
                 SC granted SLP to decide whether                al income: Kerala HC
                 non-disclosure of existence of PE         V.A. Jose v.  Dy. CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com
                 was valid ground to reopen assess-        2 (Ker.)
                 ment                                      Assessee-NRI had purchased a piece of land
                                                           in India in year 2006. He sold same in year
           Principal Officer LG Electronics India (P.)     2008 after levelling it. Assessee claimed that
           Ltd. v.  Asstt. CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com       land being in nature of agricultural land,
           39 (SC)
                                                           income arising from sale of it would be
           The Supreme Court of India granted SLP          exempt from tax.
           against High Court’s ruling that where at


                                                                                                  167
                           January 20 To January 26, 2018 u Taxmann’s Corporate Professionals Today u Vol. 41 u 61
   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65