Royalty paid by a taxpayer computed even on sales made to the Associated Enterprise is at arm’s length. Further, a taxpayer paying royalty to its Associated Enterprise can make additional payments for technical services rendered by personnel deputed by the Associated Enterprise.
Central Bank of India v. DCIT- In view of non-discrimination clause under the India-USA tax treaty, the non-resident should be given same treatment as given to resident’s taxpayers. Accordingly, the payment made to USA entities cannot be disallowed on account of non deduction of tax at source.
The Circular, while clarifying several aspects on which earlier there was ambiguity, also recognises the introduction of various Discussion Papers issued by DIPP (Defence, multi brand retail, existing venture/tie-ups, issue of shares for consideratio
The Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) on 28 September, 2010 released its fourth discussion paper in its series of such papers being released on various aspects relating to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – Issue of Shares for Consideration Other than Cash.
In a recent ruling, ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted in the case of a life insurance company. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of software expenses and of expenses incurred for increase in authorised share capital, is not attracted in view of the special provisions of section 44 of the Act read with the relevant rules in the First Schedule to the Act.
Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee?) is registered with Central Excise Department for the manufacture of pre-fabricated steel buildings, falling under Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee also avails of the CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 („CENVAT Rules?). From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, the assessee cleared its finished goods, namely, pre-fabricated building without payment of Central Excise duty to a unit located in Special Economic Zone („SEZ?) under a letter of undertaking. These goods so cleared to SEZ without payment of duty were regarded as exports and accordingly, the assessee filed six refund claims in respect of the unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. The refund claims filed by the assessee were rejected by the Original Adjudicating authority and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside by concluding that the supplies to SEZ units amount to exports for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules. The Department has filed the present appeal against the said order to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT?).
