Ordinarily, it is not incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to adjourn the case again when a last opportunity had already been granted to the Counsel for assessee, however, there may be number of circumstances where adjournment becomes necessary, in the interest of justice.
Sri Marcel Martins Vs M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) SEVERAL MEMBERS OF FAMILY PROVIDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERT LEASE PROPERTY INTO FREEOLD BUT REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HELD ON THE NAME OF ONE PERSON’S NAME-WHETHER CONSIDERED AS BENAMI PROPERTY? BRIEF FACTS: Ms. SM was a tenant (Lessee) of a residential house owned by Municipal […]
The appellant/assessee is a distributor of mutual fund units and receives commission from mutual fund companies or asset management companies. The commission received by the appellants from the said companies stand taxed by the authorities below on the ground that they have provided Business auxiliary services to the mutual fund company. The appellant/assessee submits that it is recipient of such services, which is liable to pay service tax in terms of rule2(1)(d)(vi) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Please refer to our Circular UBD.BPD.(PCB). Cir. No.47/13.05.000/2010-11 dated May 11, 2011, on the above subject, advising UCBs that their exposure to housing, real estate and commercial real estate loans should be limited to 10 percent of their total assets which could be exceeded by an additional 5 percent of total assets for housing loans to individuals upto ` 15 lakh.
One has to examine the stages through which the mash feed is converted into pellet feed. In deciding the issue whether there had been any manufacture of pellet feed. It was to be held that there had been only processing while the production of pellet feed was done by following various stages, namely, (i) batch weighing, (ii) grinding, (iii) mixing, (iv) conditioning with steam, (v) pelleting, (vi) cooling, (vii) crumbling and, finally (viii) packing. The difference between the pellet feed and mash feed, is difference in the quality of the feed and did not throw any light on the manufacture and is of no significance while discussing whether there is manufacture for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IB.
Whether the decision of the three-judge-bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries reported in [1976] 102 ITR 281 so far as it lays down the law that the requirement of recording reasons under section 127(1) of the Income tax Act is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee is still a good law in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074, and State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669 as held by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Arti Ship Breaking vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others reported in (2000) 244 ITR 333.
Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. This was emphasised in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court while construing the provisions of Section 10B in Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (2010) 325 ITR 102 at para 24.
In respect of exports made from 14-5-2009 till 6-7-2009, the grant of the refund would be governed by the conditions under the previous Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007. For the remaining period, refund would be governed by the new Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009. The conditions prescribed in the two notifications are somewhat different. The precedent notification in force till 6-7-2009 had a condition that the storage and warehouse is exclusively used for the purpose of storage or warehouse of the export goods. However, there is no such condition in the successor notification applicable from 7-7-2009.
In this article an attempt has been made to make a analysis of provisions under different laws relating to Related Party Transactions. An awareness of various provisions is very much required so as to take adequate care while entering into related party transaction and disclosing the same in the Financial Statements.
The Tribunal placed reliance on the Chennai Tribunal ruling in the case of Tweezerman (India) Private Limited v. Addl. CIT, [2010] 4 ITR (Trib.) 130 (Chennai) which ruled that provisions of Section 80-IA(10) of the Act do not give an arbitrary power to the AO to determine the profits of the taxpayer. It is incumbent on the AO to show how ordinary profits were computed based on similar comparable case. The phrase ‘more than ordinary profits’ referred in Section 80-IA(10) of the Act is different from ‘ALP’.
