The contention that under section 80-I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be computed as if profit making industrial undertaking was the only source of income, has no merit.
CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. -The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a dispute over the deduction claimed by IT return in respect of remuneration/royalty paid by it to other subsidiaries and holding companies. The assessing officer disallowed the claim and the tax appellate tribunal held that the revenue authorities were wrong, leading to the appeal. The company, which makes food products and beverages, had debited a huge amount on account royalty payable to two overseas companies, namely Nestec S.A. and Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., Switzerland. These payments were claimed as business expenditure on account of technical assistance rendered by the two companies to the Indian company. The authorities felt that the deduction was excessive. The high court upheld the ruling of the tribunal, which stated that the revenue authorities have not specified as to how much ordinary profit was supposed to be and the basis of its determination, before treating royalty payment as excessive and unreasonable.
Verizon Data Services India Private Limited (A.A.R. Nos. 865 of 2010) – The AAR held that the seconded personnel are employees of a foreign company and render managerial services to the Applicant. Hence, the payments made would be in the nature of income and would be regarded as fees for included services under the provisions of the India – US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (US DTAA) as well as fees for technical services under the provisions of the Indian Tax laws. Furthermore, the ‘make available’ criteria, as stipulated in the US DTAA, are not required to be satisfied in the case of managerial services. Hence, taxes were required to be withheld on the Applicant’s payments to its US affiliate.
The Government of the Republic of India signed a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for the avoidance of double taxation and for the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income on 25th May, 2011 at Addis Ababa. The Agreement was signed by Shri S.M. Krishna, External Affairs Minister on behalf of the Government of India and by Mr. Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development on behalf of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in the presence of the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Ethiopian Prime Minister. Mr. Meles Zenawi.
Notification No. 28 /2011- Income Tax [F. NO. 200/21-2011-ITA-I], DATED 27-5-2011 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (39) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the following as the international sporting event, persons and specified income for the purposes of the said clause, namely :—(a) the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup, 2011 as the International Sporting event; (b) the following entities as the persons, namely :— (1) International Cricket Council Development (International) Ltd.; (2) International Cricket Council Development (International) Hungary KFT;
With effect form 29.05.2011, in the following cases challan mode for payment is allowed for amount less than Rs. 50,000/-. a. Payment to ‘Investor Education and protection Fund’ through `Pay Misc. Fee’ functionality b. Any payment made by user having category as ‘Official liquidator office
S.O. In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide GSR No.482 jEj, dated the 4th March, 2011, published at page 2 of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4th March, 2011, namely:- in line 5, for has assets read has either assets. in line 6, for Rs. 250 crore or read Rs.250 crore in India or” . in line 7, for Rs.750 crore from” read Rs.750 crore in India from
Notification No. 44/2011-Customs Whereas in the matter of import of Acetone (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under sub-heading 29141100 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, the Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as the subject country) and imported into India, the designated authority vide its final findings, in notification No. 14/04/2006-DGAD, dated 4th January 2008 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section I, dated the 4th January, 2008 had come to the conclusion that
Notification No.43/2011-Customs Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Finance( Department of Revenue) No. 121/2006-Customs dated the 26th December, 2006, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide G.S.R.769 (E), dated the 26th December, 2006, namely:- In the said notification, in the Table, in column (2), for the figure ‘50079000’ wherever it occurs, the figure and words “50079010 or 50079090’’ shall be substituted.
Notification No. 36/2011 – Customs (N.T.) Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 1st June, 2011 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods.
