Foster Pty. Ltd., In Re- Advance Ruling Authority The applicant is a company incorporated in Australia and is a tax resident of that country. The applicant entered into a contract with Ravva Oil Singapore (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore for provision of services in connection with the business of oil and gas exploration and production. Ravva Oil Singapore alongwith others has in turn entered into a production sharing contract with the Government of India for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil and gas in the Ravva Oil and Gas Field. The applicant submits that Ravva Oil Singapore was not deducting tax on payments made by it to the applicant under the belief that such payments were not chargeable to tax in India. In this context, the applicant has approached this Authority with the present application seeking an advance ruling on the question whether the consideration received/receivable by the applicant under the terms of the agreement with Ravva Oil Singapore is liable to tax as royalty as defined in Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia.
Circular No.34 / 2011- Customs, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation has informed that the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA – APHIS) has notified new phytosanitary regulations for the entry of rice from countries including India where Khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium) is known to occur. These regulations, inter alia prohibit non-commercial rice consignment including passenger baggage and mail with effect from 30th July, 2011.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
Amar R Shanbhag Vs ITO (Mumbai High Court)- There was inordinate delay in obtaining commencement certificate and, therefore, the petitioner once again terminated the Development Agreement dated 17th September 2004.
CIRCULAR NO. MIRSD/14/2011, DATED 2-8-2011 Market regulator the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) today approved a single-window clearance system for market entities, including stock brokers, merchant bankers and credit ratings agencies, for grant of prior approval for change in control of their management structures.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (‘Act’) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2003 read with the order dated July 10, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.38(Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Dinesh B Parikh Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Admission of Additional Evidence– Whether when no application for additional evidence is made, ITAT should even then consider the additional evidence while deciding the appeal
57100 cases pending in SC; 42 lakh in HCs- Law Minister. As per latest available information, 57,179 cases were pending in the Supreme Court of India as on 30.6.11. The number of cases pending in the High Courts were 42,17,903 as on 30.9.2010. Giving his information in written reply to a question in Rajya Sabha, Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law & Justice informed the House that in order to facilitate expeditious disposal of cases in courts, Government has taken a number of measures as mentioned below:
It may be stated that section 281 of the Act deals with ‘Certain transfers to be void’. In order to answer the purport of the aforesaid Circular, it will be necessary to correctly understand the scope of the provisions of section 281 of the Act. In this connection, it may be stated at the outset that the previous permission of the Assessing Officer (AO), for the impugned transactions is not required in all cases,
SEBI Circular No. CIR/MIRSD/13/2011 , – SEBI has commenced processing of investor complaints in a centralized web based complaints redress system ‘SCORES’. The salient features of this system are: Centralized database of all complaints., Online movement of complaints to the concerned intermediaries, Online upload of Action Taken Reports (ATRs) by the concerned entities, and Online viewing by investors of action on the complaints and its current status.
