NC Notification No. 199/2011 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare, hereby notifies the institutions approved by the said National Committee, mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, and approves the eligible projects or schemes specified to be carried on by the said institutions and the estimated cost thereof as mentioned in column (3) of the said Table, and also specifies in the column (4) of the Table the maximum amount of such cost which may be allowed as deduction under the said section 35AC for the period of approval, namely:-
Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, the New India Insurance Co. or other Insurance Company in India, who avails the services of the assessee as a broker in the process of the re-insurance of the risk is left with no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to bring the services rendered by the assessee within the ambit of Article 13(4)(c) of the Treaty.
ITO Vs Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – After hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of Mumbai “C” Bench of the Tribunal in ITA no.5538/Mum./2009, for assessment year 2006- 07, in ACIT v/s M/s. Omniscient Securities P. Ltd., order dated 16thMarch 2011, wherein the Tribunal, vide Para-10, dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue, which reads as follows:-
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
Re- Perfetti Van Melle Holding B.V., Netherlands (AAR) – Applicant seeks advance ruling on the following questions:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the payment to be made by Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited (‘Perfetti India’) for the cost to be allocated by Perfetti Van Melle Holding BV (‘the Applicant’) will not be taxable in India in the hands of the Applicant as per the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) entered into between India and The Netherlands?
Re Poonawalla Aviation Private Limited (AAR) – Clause 7 speaks of India limiting its taxation at source on interest dealt with in Article 12 of the Convention by providing a lower rate or by providing a scope more restricted than the rate or scope provided for in the Convention, the same rate or scope shall also apply to the Convention in question. A question of lowering of rates is not involved here. What is contended is that the scope of taxation of interest has been further restricted by taking out of the purview of taxation, even loans or credits insured by Banque Francaise du Commerce Exteriur or COFACE. Going strictly by the other treaties relied on the restriction is only on taxing the interest income insured by Banque Francaise.
The CAG has pulled up the Income Tax Department for not recovering tax arrears worth over Rs 4,500 crore from various entities due to a lack of coordination between two of its wings. The government auditor, in its latest report tabled in Parliament, said it found several cases where the Assessing Officers (AOs) did not communicate updated information relating to demands to Tax Recovery Officers (TROs).
CIRCULAR NO 149/18/2011-ST So far Service Tax Refund (STR) was made available to exporters (other than SEZ Units/Developers) on specified services used for export of goods covered in Notification 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 (as amended) subject to certain conditions. In this connection, Honourable Finance Minister, had stated in his Budget Speech that
The Outcome Budget documents will be prepared separately by each Ministry/Department in respect of all Demands/Appropriations controlled by them, except those exempted from this requirement and to the extent disclosures are not barred on considerations of security etc. A list of exempted Demands/Appropriations is enclosed at Annexure-I. However, even the Ministries/Departments and other authorities ‘exempted’ from preparation of Outcome Budget and placing it in public domain are requested to carry out this exercise for internal use and voluntarily decide to place it in public domain fully or partially.
Manishkumar & Co. Vs. ITO( ITAT Ahmedabad)- The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in respect of the loan of Rs.13,77,000/- shown in the name of Shri Madanlal J. Panjabi. The assessee was only able to furnish the death certificate of Madanlal J. Panjabi. No other evidence including that from the legal heir of Mr. Panjabi was submitted The AO therefore, made the addition of Rs.13,77,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) also no details could be submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Further aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us.
