In a ruling affecting the way multinational companies use brand names in India, and the tax demands raised on payments in this regard, the High Court here has laid down some principles in this regard. It did so while setting aside an order by Income Tax authorities to disallow as a deductible expense the royalty paid by Maruti Suzuki India to its Japanese parent, Suzuki Motor Corporation, for using the latter’s ‘S’ logo on cars sold in India.
In a crackdown on offshore tax evasion, American authorities have begun a criminal probe into HSBC individual account holders, who may not have disclosed their accounts in India. Indian Finance Ministry officials admitted that authorities in New Delhi “must have passed on the information to their US counterparts as part of bilateral or multilateral agreements”.
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has confined its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India.
This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
For a new listing, at least 25% of each class of equity shares or debentures convertible into equity shares issued by the entity will be offered and allotted to the public. However, for entities with post-issue capital, calculated at offer price, of more than INR 4,000 crores (INR40 billion), this limit has been currently fixed at 10%. Also, the increased threshold of 25% will not currently apply to an entity whose draft offer document is pending with the SEBI on or before the commencement of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules 2010, if it satisfies the conditions prescribed in rule 19(2)(b) of SCRR for applicability of the 10% threshold.
Two-wheeler makers will now have to sell a helmet along with their bikes and scooters after the Supreme Court today dismissed a plea by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers against such a step. A bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice A K Ganguly dismissed the petition filed by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) challenging an earlier order of the Delhi High Court.
I am directed to say that in a meeting held in Department of Commerce with FTWZ Developers doubts were raised as to whether units in FTWZ can hold goods on behalf of foreign buyer, DTA supplier and buyer. 2. It is clarified that FTWZ units can hold goods on behalf of foreign supplier and buyer and DTA supplier and buyer as well, subject to fulfillment of provisions made in Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules, 2006.
