Assessee here, in our opinion, did fall within the concept of rendering a formal education and could not be equated with a coaching institute. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not have been denied the eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for a reason that it was not doing charitable activity as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act.
It has further been the contention of the revenue that the amendments vide Finance Act 2010, inserting mutually exclusionary clauses in s. 44BB and s.44DA are clarificatory, and hence are retrospective in operation, w.e.f. AY 2004-05. We find that this contention is not at all correct as the said provision of the Act cannot be said to be clarificatory and hence retrospective in operation. In this regard in the case of CGG Veritas Services SA (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Furthermore, the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2010, excluding the application of Section 44BB in cases where Section 44DA applies, is prospective and applies from assessment year 2011-12.
. An existing CS firm desirous to convert itself into LLP shall be required to follow the provisions of Chapter-X of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 read with Second Schedule to the said Act containing provisions of conversion from existing firms into Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as well as provisions of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.
The operation theatre and surgical are highly technical equipments for the operation of the persons. Therefore, they cannot be maintained in a routine or normal manner, but a technical person is required for maintenance of such equipments. Similar is the case with RO system, CT scan machine, MRI machine, lift and sterlisation and medical equipments. Therefore, these contracts cannot be the contracts in a routine or normal manner but for which technical service has been rendered and provisions of section 194J, read with Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) are attracted.
The appellant had raised interest bearing loan from Reliance Capital Ltd. The said Loan had been utilized by the appellant for the purchase of shares and also for making capital contribution to M/s Shreenath Enterprises in which the appellant was a partner. Thus, to the extent the interest bearing loan has been used for making contribution, there is a direct nexus between the loan obtained from Reliance Capital Ltd. and contribution made to the partnership firm.
Finance Act, 2012 has amended the provisions of sec. 92CA of the Act retrospectively to empower the TPO to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions noticed by him in the course of proceedings before him, even if said transaction was not reported by the assessing officer.
There is no need to capitalize the upfront fee for term loan in connection with the transfer of the loans from one bank to another against prepayment penalty charges paid to the existing banks to migrate from a costly 15% p.a. loan to chaper 10% p.a. loan offered by another bank.
It was held that the ‘gross amount’ royalty under the India-US DTAA includes not only the actual payment by way of royalty but also the tax withheld by the payer which is borne by him and paid to Central Government on behalf of the payee as agreed between the parties. In short, the ITAT held that the royalty has to be paid on the grossed up amount. ITAT Delhi also held that royalty is taxable on receipt basis irrespective of the system of accounting adopted by the parties.
CA Srikant Agarwal The exchange rate plays an important role on the whole financial economy of any country including Indian Economy. In the recent past Indian currency (i.e Rupee) has depreciated against all the major currencies (i.e US $, Pound sterling £ , Euro € and Yen ¥) of the world and has reached to […]
In the instant case, the liability to pay commission Rs. 2,94,701/- has arisen by virtue of sales in the financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The realization of sale amount in the next financial year will not make much difference as the liability to pay commission had crystallized in the financial year 2004-05 itself after sale. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground raised by the assessee.
