The Supreme Court will hear a petition tomorrow that seeks directions to market regulator Sebi to take action on the report of a high-powered committee which had probed the IPO scam of 2006 and NSDL’s role in it. A bench comprising Justices RV Raveendran and AK Patnaik will hear the petition.
Announcement containing certain extracts taken from a communication addressed by the ministry of corporate affairs to the three professional institutes namely, ICAI, ICWAI and ICSI on the steps to be taken in respect of “information” received against members/firms registered with the respective institutes
ITO (TDS-1), Ahmedabad v. Apollo Hospitals International Ltd – There are two types of agreements. One of the covenant is stated to be in the nature of employer/employee agreement and the other is stated to be FGC contract. The distinction between the two inter alia include: a) In case of the employee doctors, there is a list of allowances (basic, HRA, etc). The consultant doctors are paid a lumpsum fee. b) The employee doctors‟ agreement had a clause for leave entitlement unlike the FGC contract c) Employee doctors are not entitled for any other full time employment d) Consultant doctors were not employed by service rules but were expected to follow the code of conduct
With respect to the Scheme, the tax department had raised similar objections before the Gujarat High Court, which after considering the contentions of both, the tax department and the petitioner company had dismissed the petition thereon. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending before the Division Bench. The Delhi High Court, contrary to the order of the Gujarat High Court, has relied on settled judicial precedents and has passed the order sanctioning the Scheme.
DDIT vs. Safmarine Container Lines NV The Mumbai Tribunal in this case has observed that unless there is a specific language in the tax treaty which keeps the income from inland transportation in connection with international traffic outside the purview of Article 8 of the tax treaty, inland haulage charges would be considered as directly connected with operation of ship in international traffic and thus are not taxable in India.
Wockhardt Ltd. v/s ACIT – [2011] (Mumbai – ITAT) – The Tribunal has held that the services rendered by the non-residents should be in the nature of technical services and such services should make available technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how, etc., that enables the recipient of services to apply the said technology independently in its business, so as to fall within the purview of “fees for included services” as per tax treaty with USA, UK, Canada. Failing this the payments will not be subject to tax in India.
Penalty under s 271FA – Failure to file annual information return — The penalty under s 271FA is leviable if the assessee fails to respond to the notice for failure of filing annual information return — as held by Gujrat High Court in Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd v DIT(CIB); Special Civil Application No. 14675 of 2010, 22 April 2011
Shree Bhagawathy Textiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT – If the assessee has made a claim of deduction from this profit not enumerated in the clauses (i) to (ix) covered by Explanation to section 115JA, the assessment so completed based on the profit taken from the profit and loss account appropriation account submitted by the assesseee happens to be an apparent mistake which could having satisfied on the factual mistake committed by the assessing officer in the original assesment, rightly upheld the revised assessment issued under section 154 by reversing their earlier order.
The Supreme Court has stated that a Lok Adalat cannot pass an order to pay the insurance money when there was no compromise between the parties, in the case, Life Insurance Corporation vs Suresh Kumar. Lok Adalat cannot take over the function of the regular courts. In this case, the Lok Adalat tried to arrive at a compromise between the parties, but failed.
The direct tax collections in Gujarat for FY-2010-11 stood at Rs 17,782.50 crore against the Rs 15,239.70 crore in a year ago period, showing a year-on-year growth of 16.69 per cent. The tax mop up was lower by little less than two per cent of the revised budgetary target allocation for the fiscal.
