Join our webinars on GST Tribunals preparation. Learn to grow your IDT practice and prepare for GSTAT with expert guidance. Register now for ₹899 + GST!
under CST Act as lot of Assessments are pending under VAT and CST Acts and many dealers are facing problems in getting and producing the C forms for finalization of their assessments. Some important issues relating to the C forms are discussed as below for the benefit of dealers all around India:
The Direct Code Bill 2010 is in public domain now, after a long debate and discussion on the Draft DTC put on public domain in August 2009. The Chapter of INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION having no space in the Draft DTC and has been made part of Direct Taxes Bill 2010, therefore requires proper public debate and sufficient discussions as to the Chapter XVI of DTC Bill 2010.
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in its recent ruling in the case of M/s Hinduja TMT Ltd. [2010-T11-18-ITAT-MUM-TP] , has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the arm’s length nature of its international transactions with associated enterprises. In this regard, the uncontrolled comparable data as well as other relevant details submitted by the assessee must be examined by the Revenue. Arm’s length price (“ALP”) must eventually be established with reference to appropriate uncontrolled comparable data and other relevant details, and by applying the methods prescribed in the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In the same ruling, on a separate ground of appeal, the Tribunal considered whether the sale of investment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital gain or business income. Based on the facts, the Tribunal has, without giving any findings, restored the file back to the assessing officer (“AO”) so that the AO may take a view, consistent with those taken in earlier assessment years on identical issues, after considering the assessee’s contentions and having regard to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582; 188 Taxman 140).
Income from services in connection with seismic surveys, data acquisition, processing and interpretation of such data is covered under Section 44BB of the IT Act, 1961 and cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’
In a recent case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd.1 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“ITAT”) has held that royalty payments made by a resident of Singapore to another Singaporean entity, as consideration of rights to transmit and broadcast matches etc. in India, are not subject to Indian withholding tax requirements. The ITAT in this case relied on Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty (“Treaty”), which provides that royalty payments will be considered to arise in India, only if the royalty is paid by a resident of India or incurred in connection with its permanent establishment (“PE”) in India and such royalty is borne by such PE.
It is mandatory for the assessee to follow one of the methods prescribed in Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and demonstrate that the international transactions entered with the associated enterprise are at arm’s length.
