The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s proposition that only real income should be taxed and noted that these arguments could not be accepted in the context of Chapter X – Special Provisions relating to Avoidance of Tax, of the Act. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Perot System TSI (India) Limited. The Tribunal observed that RBI’s approval was not sufficient from an Indian transfer pricing perspective as the character and substance of the transaction needs to be judged in order to determine whether the transaction has been done at arm’s length. The Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s contention that the loans granted were commercially expedient and economic circumstances did not warrant the charging of interest.
AAR in the case of Dassault (supra) was a case of sale of shrink wrap software and the AAR has held that reproduction and adaptation envisaged by section 14(a)(i) and (vi) can contextually mean only reproduction and adaptation for the purpose of commercial exploitation. The ruling of the AAR in the case of Dassault (supra) was approved by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Ericsson AB,New Delhi (supra). It can therefore be said that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that consideration paid merely for right to use cannot be held to be royalty. This ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court would also apply when shrink wrap software is sold.
CIT v. Shravanee Constructions (Karnataka High Court) Section 80-IB(10) of the Act is applicable not for merely building housing project but for developing and building housing project. In terms of the agreement, the taxpayer not only undertook the development activities on the land in question, but in fact the taxpayer entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land, paid the entire consideration. However, it did not execute a registered sale deed in its name. Thus, the Assessee contributed the land.
Receipt of the impugned amount was on account of part services rendered by the assessee to his previous foreign employer outside India. Under section 5 of the I.T. Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all incomes from whatever source derived, which is received or deemed to be received in India in such year by or on behalf of such person; or accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year; or accrues or arises to him outside India during such year.
Section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision and ostensibly involves creation of an additional tax liability on the assessee and, therefore, notwithstanding the presence of the expression ‘may’ in section 50C(2)(a), the Assessing Officer in the instant case (where assessee had claimed in his return itself that stamp duty values exceeds FMV) ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for ascertaining the value of the capital asset in question.
In partial modification of para (b) (iii) of the General Circular No. 67/2011, dated 30th November, 2011, it has been decided to extend exemption from mandatory cost audit to all units located in the specified Zones such as Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Export Processing Zones (EPZs) and Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and also to the 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs), subject to the following:
Cost Accounting Records Rules, 2011 do not visualize companies to change their cost accounting system if already in-place; but they are required to comply with the Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles and Cost Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India, to the extent these are found to be relevant and applicable and also file compliance report with the Central Government. It was also observed that existence of structured & verified cost accounting records would enable the companies to fulfil regulatory requirements; comply with the Tax Accounting Standards; and assist is their tax assessments.
The Consent order, containing the alleged misconduct, legal provisions alleged to have been violated, facts and circumstances of the case and the consent terms, shall be hosted on the website of SEBI.
A charitable trust is not invalid merely because that settlor is one of the beneficiaries as long as he is not the sole beneficiary. If settlor is the sole beneficiary, then the trust would be invalid on account of non-divesting of party. Where dominant object of the trust was to help the poor Parsis and to donate to educational institutions, registration u/s 12A was not deniable merely because preference was to be given to poor relatives of the settlor so long as it did not make the poor relatives of the settlor the only beneficiaries.
These rules may be called the Companies (Director Identification Number) Amendment Rules, 2012. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 29th May, 2012. 2. In the Companies (Director Identification Number) Rules, 2006,- (a) after FORM NO. DIN 1, in Annexure 1, for item (i) and entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
