Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
The Delhi bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. Virage Logic International (ITA No. 494(Del) 2010) held that transfer of a computer software by an Indian branch of a foreign company [approved as 100 percent Export Oriented Unit (EOU) by Software Technology Parks of India (STPI)] to its head office is a transaction eligible for claiming tax benefits under section 1 0A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
In a recent ruling Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (Taxpayer) (Civil Appeal No. 7518 of 2010) on the issue of deductibility of export profits from the net profit while computing ‘book profit’ for determining minimum alternate tax (MAT) liability under the Indian Tax Law (ITL) ruled that, while computing ‘book profit’, the net profit has to be reduced by the amount of export profits ‘eligible’ for deduction in the computation under the normal provisions of the ITL (normal computation) and not by the ‘quantum’ of deduction under that provision.
In the case of Vikas Road Carriers Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-417-ITAT-MUM] the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), ruled that, in light of the very typical facts of the case, no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for non-withholding of tax since the payments to the transporters were less than Rs. 20,000 each, and less than Rs. 50,000 in a year to any party and hence did not attract the withholding tax provisions of section 194C of the Act. The Tribunal relied very heavily on the fact that while the assessee had given details of expenses incurred, the revenue authorities were unable to dispute the assessee’s statement that the expenses in question did not exceed the limit of Rs. 20,000 per payment, and Rs. 50,000 per payee per year.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs M/s Toshiba India Private Limited (2010-TII-14-ITAT-DEL-TP) has rejected the Assessing Officer’s approach of cherry picking the comparables and proposing an arbitrary Transfer Pricing adjustment.
Amendment to the format of disclosure under clause 35:-Currently custodians are classified as a separate category other than promoters and non – promoters. Henceforth, shares held by custodians shall be disclosed as a part of the promoter/ promoter g
Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) provides for a tax holiday to an undertaking engaged in developing, or operating and maintaining, or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility subject to satisfaction of certain conditions mentioned in the Section.
Under Section 80CCF, any individual or Hindu undivided family can invest up to Rs 20,000 in infrastructure bonds and avail of tax benefits. This will be over the Rs 1-lakh deduction allowed under Section 80C. So, an investor in the tax bracket of 30
THE Delhi high court has ruled that the tax authorities cannot initiate assessment proceedings simply on belief of escapement of tax, or belief that some income has escaped tax, effectively curbing powers of the revenue department to open past cases.
The Reserve Bank of India has sent to the finance ministry a draft of its discussion paper on conversion of foreign bank branches into wholly-owned subsidiaries. The draft is understood to recommend compulsory local incorporation, coupled with increa
Settling or putting an end to the disputes among shareholders by the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 is a complicated job. When where exist serious difference of opinion among the minority and majority shareholders in a Private Limited Company, it would really be difficult for the Company Law Board to put an end to the matters complained of or to regularize the affairs of the Company.
