The Ministry of Labour and Employment and Training (MLET), vide its office memorandum dated 8 September, 2009, has imposed restrictions on the issue of Employment Visas (EVs) to highly skilled and professionals foreign nationals.
Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Cheminova India Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 4865/Mum/05) [13 ITAT INDIA 240 (Mum)]., accepted higher price paid to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) (as compared to unrelated parties) under Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method to be the arm’s length price (ALP) based on the economic and commercial justification.
Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. K. Mohan & Co.(Exports) (P.) Ltd [2010] 130 TTJ 719 (Bang) held that that profits earned from forward contracts cannot be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) .
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
