Whether salary credited to a bank account in India for services rendered there by a non-resident was taxable in India?
This decision is relevant to assessees following RBI guidelines for accounting for interest rates swaps. Companies which are claiming unrealised loss on outstanding interest rate swaps at the year end would find this ruling useful. While this ruling
Calcutta High Court in the case of PILCOM v. CIT , held that if any payment in the nature of guaranteed amount was paid to any non-resident sports association in relation to any match played in India, the provisions of section 194E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would be applicable with respect to deduction of tax at source. Furthermore, the HC has held that the provisions of section 115BBA of the Act which deals with taxability of non-resident sportsmen or sports associations, are independent from the other provisions of the Act and would override the generality of section 9(1) of the Act which deals with the accrual or assessing of income in India.
The Chennai Tribunal has held that payments towards IPLC / dedicated bandwidth are towards use of ‘equipment’ or ‘process’ and therefore would qualify as royalty under the Act as well as DTAA. It may be noted that the proposition on ‘process’ eleme
With the introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules in 2004 (“the Credit Rules”), cross credit between Service tax and Excise duty was allowed for the first time. While the intention of introducing these Rules was to prevent the cascading effect of taxes,
Recently, the Delhi High Court (High Court) in the case of CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (ITA No. 1154 of 2009) (Judgement date: 24 January 2011 Assessment Year 1996-97) held that additional provision for warranty made was not contingent liability
In principle, the CUP method (the traditional transaction method) is preferable to the other methods because all other things being equal, the CUP and traditional transactional methods lead to more reliable results vis-a-vis the results obtained by a
In the absence of any evidence of any deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to delay delivery of the vehicle, we are unable to agree with the petitioner that the increase in price has to be borne by the respondents. The petitioner had r
The learned CIT has also given one more reason that it is not comprehensible as to why not the assessee got itself registered as a society,if the motive of the assessee was to do activities of public charity. This reason given by the CIT is found, in
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). It is registered as a Government Company under the Companies Act, 1956. It is under the control of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. A dispute had been raised by the Central Government (Ministry of Finance) by issuing show cause notices to the assessee alleging that the Corporation was not entitled to avail/utilize Modvat/Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs whose values stood written off.
