Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance today lashed out at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for “not filing an FIR against the BCCI when it found out that the society has violated several provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) i
With no consensus in sight for a model to implement the goods and services tax (GST), state governments have presented a modified version of the proposed regime that would enable states to enjoy discretionary fiscal powers without requiring Constitu
Getting approvals for setting up units in SEZs will be done electronically from next month – a move which will help entrepreneurs reduce transaction costs, a senior Commerce Ministry official said today. “Special Economic Zones (SEZs) online means al
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which is one of the Institutes functioning under the aegis of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, will be organizing a one- day Round Table Conference on the theme ‘Commerce & Accountancy Educati
By majority opinion, the Tribunal found that the assessee cannot claim any credit for the TDS on the income which is not offered for taxation. The Tribunal further found that the benefit for the TDS is to be allowed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act u/s. 199.
(1) These rules may be called the CENVAT Credit (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2010. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 2, in clause (a), after sub-clause (C), the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely:- (D) components, spares and accessories of motor vehicles, dumpers or tippers, as the case may be, used to provide taxable services as specified in sub-clauses (B) and (C);”
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) concluded that gains derived from the transfer of shares by a Mauritius company to its wholly owned subsidiary in India would not be taxable in India under the Indian Income Tax Act (ITA), nor would such gains be subject to the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) (Praxair Pacific Limited (A.A.R. No. 855/2009)). The AAR further clarified that benefits under the India-Mauritius tax treaty would be available to the Mauritius Company.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Delhi High Court Ruling: Transfer Pricing – Sec 92 – An important ruling by the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been held that the methodology to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities for making an adjustment should be equitable and fair, and has ruled on the payment for the use of intangible assets and attributing arm’s length consideration for activities carried out by the licensee, etc. [Maruti Suzuki India Limited – W.P. 6876/2008]
