These rules may be called the Company Law Board (Fees on Application and Petitions) (Amendment) Rules, 2012. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 12th August, 2012. 2. In Company Law Board (Fees on Application and Petitions) Rules, 1991, in the Schedule, serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 13, 18 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted.
A plain reading of document on records demonstrate that FADV-US is acting as an agent of the assessee for various purchases/ upgrades. This cannot be a reimbursement. It is purchase on behalf of the assessee. In other words, what can be said is that the assessee has routed its purchases through FADV-US. Such routing of purchases cannot be called as reimbursement of expenses.
Circular No.161/12/2012 -ST Accounting Code for payment of service tax under the Negative List approach to taxation of services, with effect from the first day of July 2012 – regarding. Negative List based comprehensive approach to taxation of services came into effect from the first day of July, 2012. For payment of service tax under the new approach, a new Minor Head – ‘All taxable Services’ has been allotted under the Major Head 0044-Service Tax.
Circular No. 162/13 /2012 –ST Consequent to the changes introduced at the time of Budget 2012 in the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, together with revision of the service tax rate from 10% to 12% and the subsequent changes that have been made effective from 01.07.2012, the following clarifications have been desired: (a) Point of taxation and the rate applicable in respect of continuous supply of services at the time of change in rates effective from 01.04.2012;
ACIT v. Result Services (P.) Ltd. – The assessee is paying rent to the holding company as reimbursement since last many years. This position has been accepted by the department all through and it has been never disputed even when provisions for TDS were on statute since 1994. Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was inserted in Act w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Similarly, this position was also not disputed even after the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2006.
Trade Credits’ (TC) refer to credits extended for imports directly by the overseas supplier, bank and financial institution for maturity of less than three years. Depending on the source of finance, such trade credits include suppliers’ credit or buyers’ credit. Suppliers’ credit relates to credit for imports into India extended by the overseas supplier, while buyers’ credit refers to loans for payment of imports into India arranged by the importer from a bank or financial institution outside India for maturity of less than three years. It may be noted that buyers’ credit and suppliers’ credit for three years and above come under the category of External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) which are governed by ECB guidelines.
Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries case (supra) held that leave encashment is neither a statutory liability nor a contingent liability and it is a provision to be made for the entitlement of an employee achieved in a particular financial year. Testing clause (f) with the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of Section 43 B, it was held that the same could not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the original enactment.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. UOI There is no provision like section 4(7) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act in Delhi VAT Act. The entire case of the petitioner was that there should have been a provision like this in Delhi VAT Act as well, otherwise it is leading to various difficulties. Even if one presume that the provision like section 4(7) in Andhra Pradesh VAT Act makes it a better legislation in comparison with Delhi VAT Act but absence of such a provision, cannot be a ground for declaring statute as arbitrary or ultra vires. Bad legislative drafting, if at all, cannot furnish a ground for judicial review of the legislative action. It has to be shown that a particular provision is either beyond the legislative competence and is thus ultra vires or is unconstitutional viz. namely it offends some constitutional provision.
Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT As the facts in issue for the year under appeal are identical with facts of the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, respectfully following the decisions of the tribunal mentioned here in above in the appellants own case for the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee and hold that the additions on account adjustment in arm’s length price to the tune of Rs.110700000.00 is uncalled for and accordingly the adjustment is rejected on the facts of the case discussed here in above .
Section 158BD is only an enabling provision to assess any other assessee other than the searched assessee if in the course of search of another assessee evidence of undisclosed income is received in respect of the assessee who is not searched. However, the assessment pursuant to the enabling provision i.e. under section 158BD also is an assessment under section 158BC and the procedure contemplated is also one and the same. In fact, what section 158BD says is that when the evidence collected in search of an assessee revealed undisclosed income of another assessee, who is not searched, the material or evidence so received can be the basis for making assessment under section 158BC of the assessee who is not searched.
