The Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) on 23 March 2010 issued instructions on the matter whether losses on account of foreign exchange derivative transactions can be allowed against the taxable income of an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). These instructions have been issued in wake of recent growth in the volume of foreign exchange derivative transactions entered into by the corporate sector in India combined with the volatility in the foreign exchange market in the last financial year.
Recently Bombay high court in the case of The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. (Taxpayer) [AIT-2010-170-HC] on the binding nature of a ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), reiterated the relevant provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) and held that an AAR ruling is binding on a taxpayer and the Tax Authority, in relation to the transaction in respect of which the AAR ruling was sought.
In a recent ruling Delhi High Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2010-TIOL-279-HC-DEL-IT] considered the issue whether the Taxpayer, having an in-house R&D facility ‘recognized’ by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), would be eligible for weighted deduction from a date prior to making application to DSIR for approval under Section 35(2AB)(Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
Recently Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL-31-SC-IT] on the issue of whether a credit entry in individual debtor’s account is a prerequisite for allowing the amount as a deduction for write off as bad debts in terms of Section 36(1)(vii) (Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The Taxpayer had reduced the amount debited to the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) from the Loans and Advances/Debtors Account (Debtors A/c) on the assets side of the Balance Sheet.
It has been brought to the notice of the Board that classification of Rice parboiling machinery is being disputed in certain jurisdictions. Two tariff headings under consideration for its classification are 8419 or 8437. It has been represented by the Rice Mill Machinery Manufacturers Association that the practice so far followed by the department was not to charge excise duty for many years but suddenly it has been sought to charge duty on these machines by proposing classification under heading 8419. The matter has been examined by the Board.
Recently Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer), [2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT] held that merely making a claim in the return of income which is not accepted by the Tax Authority or which is not sustainable under the ITL, in itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars by the Taxpayer and, hence, is not liable to penalty.
The Tribunal has in case of DCW Ltd. v. CCE [2007 (217) ELT 541 (Mad.)] held that “ where onward freight was not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods, there was no question of return freight being included in the assessable value, whether or not the return freight was mentioned in the relevant invoices. The principle stated by the Tribunal in the cited decision is squarely applicable in respect of such return freight also”.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) [A.A.R. No. 797 of 2009] in the case of M/s Umicore Finance Luxembourg (Applicant). There was a sale of shares of a company by its shareholders which had received such shares on conversion of a firm into the company, under the provisions of Part IX of the Indian Company Law (ICL).
Recently Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Valentine Maritime Mauritius Ltd (Taxpayer), [2010-TIOL-195-ITAT-MUM] held that the number of days relating to each of the contracts cannot be aggregated to determine the ‘duration test’, as the activities carried out therein are not inextricably interconnected or interdependent and do not form a coherent whole in conjunction with each other.
India has settled a dispute over taxing profits of captive IT services units and research arms of US firms, bolstering New Delhi’s position as a preferred destination of such investments. The negotiated settlement between the tax authorities of the countries allows India to tax 17.5% of the profits earned by Indian subsidiaries of the US companies in 2004-05. India had sought to tax 25-30% of the profits.
