(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]
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of filing of returns of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 for all categories of cases in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 30th November 2010. The decision was taken by the CBDT in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of […]
Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Finance 23-September-2010 The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the due date of filing of returns of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 for all categories of cases in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 30th November 2010. The decision was taken by the […]
On consideration of the reports of disturbance of general life caused due to the law and order problem in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereby extends the due date of filing of returns of income for the assessment year 2010-11 for all category of cases in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to 30th November, 2010.
I am directed to invite attention to the Board’s circular No.4/2004-Cus dated 16.01.2004 which debars conversion of free shipping bills to Advance License/DFRC/DEPB shipping bills and allows conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to
In this case the ITAT has held that the agreements entered into by the assessee, viewed together in their entirety, pertain to a single transaction of purchase of assets. Accordingly, the amount paid for non-compete fees was considered to be for acquisition of a business and capital in nature. The ITAT has also observed that each case would need to be decided in the background of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus, if the facts in another case are different (e.g. in the case of a continuing business) it may be possible to distinguish the ruling of the ITAT.
