The issue is whether the payments made to the parent company on account of reimbursement of salaries in relation to services rendered by the personnel on deputation to the JV attract the liability of TDS. The Counsel for the assessee and the DR made a contradictory statement with respect to the fact that the details have been furnished before the AO. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to verify the details of expenditure and examine whether the payments were actual reimbursement of expenses pertaining to personnel deputed with the assessee company. However the AO shall restrict himself to the evidences which have been submitted before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue in accordance with the law.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited. vs Sami Khatib Of Mumbai (Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited). A division bench of the Bombay high court last week dismissed the appeal of Cadila Pharmaceuticals against the judgement of a single judge bench restraining Cadila from manufacturing, marketing or exporting medicinal preparations under the trade mark “Hb TONE”/ “HB TONE” or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademarks of another company, Medley Pharmaceuticals, namely “ARBITONE”, “RB TONE” or “HB RON”. The complaint was that Cadila was “passing off” the products with similar names.
ITO v Murlidharan G Pillai – Neither the deposits are proved by the assessee nor the claim of peak is established by him. In fact assessee has also failed to show real destination of the money through bank draft so purchased by him out of the cash deposited in the bank account thereby suppressing material facts in understanding the nature of cash inflow and its destination. Entire transaction of deposits in the bank account remained under crowd of secrecy and, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee remained unsatisfactory. Even the benefit of withdrawal through ATM mentioned as above cannot be given importance because they are apparently for household purposes and cannot be said to be available for redeposit in absence of any other evidence of meeting out household expenditure by the assessee. We apparently uphold the contentions of Revenue that entire sum of Rs.17,48,500/- deserves to be confirmed. As a result, we uphold the order of AO setting aside the order of ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.
India’s largest lender, the State Bank of India (SBI) is set to increase its base rate by 25 basis points, the Business Standard reported Monday. According to the report, the SBI is set to increase its base rate by 0.25 percent before the Reserve Bank of India’s annual policy review schelduled for May 3.
Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- When the High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u!s 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171].
