Supreme Court makes it very clear that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning. Therefore where a transaction is sham and not genuine as in the present case then it cannot be considered to be a part of tax planning or legitimate avoidance of tax liability. The Supreme Court in fact concluded that there is no conflict between its decisions in the matter of McDowell (supra), Azadi Bachao (supra) and Mathuram Agarwal (supra). In the present case the purchase and sale of shares, so as to take long term and short term capital loss was found as a matter of fact by all the three authorities to be a sham.
Mastek Limited Vs. The Addl.CIT ITAT that the taxpayer’s UK subsidiary was not merely undertaking marketing activities. The Tribunal held that the UK subsidiary should be characterised as a distributor on the basis of its agreement with the taxpayer, selling efforts, market and credit risks and overall business strategies. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reward has to be determined with regard to return on sales rather than a mark-up on value added expenses (marketing and selling expenses).
S.O.630 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.62/94- Customs (N.T.) dated the 21st November, 1994, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3, sub-section (ii) vide number S.O. 828 (E) dated the 21st November, 1994
Notification No. 14/2012-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:-
Circular No. 962/05/2012-CX Duty payable under rule 8 is on a different footing from duty payable under Section 11A. Duty under Rule 8 is paid after self determination by the assessee unlike Duty payable under Section 11A where generally the duty is determined by the Central Excise officer and the payment is mandated after such determination. There is no time limit prescribed under Section 11A i.e., monthly or quarterly unlike the date prescribed under Rule 8 (i.e., 5th of the next month). Therefore, the restriction on the utilization of the cenvat credit accruing subsequent to the last date of the month or quarter in which the arrears arise, is not applicable to the demands confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Centrica India Offshore Private Ltd., (AAR) – It was held that personnel seconded to the Taxpayer, a group company in India, did not become its employees in the absence of an obligation undertaken by the Taxpayer to pay employment costs of such personnel. This was held despite the fact that the Taxpayer exercised control and supervision and was also responsible for the work of the personnel.
Notification No.24/2012-Customs In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 12/2012-Customs, dated the 17th March, 2012 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide G.S.R. 185(E) dated the 17th March, 2012, namely: –
Notification No. 27/2012 – Customs (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 16/2011-Cus (N. T.), dated, the 1st March,2011, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 155 (E), dated the 1st March,2011, namely:-
In AY 1999-2000, before expiry of the original time limit of five consecutive assessment years for which deduction was available as per then applicable law, the amended law became applicable and the assessee was accordingly eligible for deduction for the extended period of 10 years, as against 5 years allowed under the preamended law.
works contract means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contrat is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, improvement, repair, renovation, alteration of any building or structure on land or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to any building or structure on land;
