LS Cable Limited vs. DIT – Nothing in law prevents the parties to enter into a contract which provides for sale of material for a specified consideration, although they were meant to be utilized in the fabrication and installation of a complete plant. Regarding the revenue’s plea that as the applicant has a PE in India, the income arising should be taxed in India, it stated that the existence of PE would be for the purpose of carrying out the contract for onshore supplies and services etc. but such a PE would have no role to play in offshore supplies. Even if a PE is involved in carrying on some incidental activities such as clearance from the port and transportation, it cannot be said that the PE is in connection with the offshore supplies. We accordingly hold that the applicant is not liable to tax in respect of offshore supplies as per the Act.
e-Filing for AY 10-11: Quick Statistics (as on 31st July 2011) QUICK HIGHLIGHTS OF E-FILING IN F.Y. 2011-12 (UPTO 31/7/2011) COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF E-FILING IN CURRENT YEAR FORM WISE RECEIPT OF E-RETURNS UPTO 31st JULY S.N. FORM NAME F.Y. 10-11 F.Y. 2011-12 % GROWTH IN F.Y. 11-12 1 ITR-1 10,92,448 25,63,608 134.67% 2 ITR-2 3,85,634 […]
The government is considering a proposal to extend Employees Provident Fund Scheme to all companies with over 10 employees, the Parliament was informed today. The proposal is under examination and consideration of the government, Labour and Employment Minister Mallikarjun Kharge said in a written reply.
The long pending issue of opening of multi-brand retail to foreign investment moved one more step, with the top secretaries forwarding 10 recommendations to the commerce and industry ministry on Friday. We have formally received the minutes of the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) meeting held on July 22 and appropriate decision will be taken soon, an official on the condition of anonymity said. The ministry is examining it and would take the proposal before the Cabinet soon, the official added.
Nihilent Technologies Private Limited Vs DCIT & Anr. (Mumbai High Court)- A division bench of the Bombay high court has quashed the reopening of the income tax assessment of Nihilent Technologies Ltd after four years. The software company had shares held by Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
CIT Vs Phil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (High Court of Bombay) – interest paid on borrowings utilized for the purchase of shares in order to retain managing agency by the assessee company was held allowable as business expenditure. We find that the reasoning of the ITAT that the overdraft was not operated only for investing in the shares of subsidiary company and the fact that it was also used for investment in the shares of the subsidiary company to have control over that company and, therefore, the element of interest paid on the overdraft was not susceptible of bifurcation and therefore, the respondent no.1 is entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is correct and deserves to be accepted.
In all these three appeals the assessee is the same and even the issue is identical, which pertains to three different assessment years, the factual premise on which such an issue has arisen for consideration is somewhat different. Therefore, we propose to first take up the facts of ITA No.14/2005 to understand and appreciate the question of law on which this appeal is admitted.
Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
Sanjay Ghai Vs Dy. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), New Delhi on 29th August, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Earth Castle Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Imposition of penalty under s 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the assessee is unable to substantiate an explanation in relation to the addition made by the AO in respect of the undisclosed income found during the search and also did not file appeal against the addition.
