In Re- Red Hat India Private Limited- Date of filing of the return is the relevant date to consider the applicability of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act, and that the filing of the return of income generates questions including the ones raised before this Authority, the jurisdiction to give a ruling in the present application has to be held to be barred. We are, therefore, constrained to reject the application as being barred by clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act.
it has been brought to the notice of Direct Taxes Committee that demand notices are being served on the Deductors on account of various possible reasons. The said matter was placed by ICAI before the Central Direct Taxes Advisory Committee in its meeting which was chaired by Hon’ble Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee.
The company is engaged in General Insurance Business with its operations spreading all over India and abroad. The company is on look-out to appoint a firm of Chartered Accountants as concurrent auditor to carry-out the concurrent audit of investment department of the company. The investment portfolio of the company is Rs. 20,000 crore (approx.)
in case the assessment is set aside by the CIT(A) and setting aside become final, interest u/s. 220(2) has to be charged only after the expiry of 35 days from the date of service of demand notice pursuant to the fresh assessment order. In the case of the assessee, since the original order of assessment was confirmed by the CIT (A) but on further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the issue restored to the AO, it was held that in terms of the circular, the interest u/s. 220(2) has to be charged only from the date of fresh assessment order.
The assessee, Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd, an Indian Company was engaged in marketing of pharmaceutical products. It was a subsidiary company of NOVA Nordisk, Singapore. One of the products (insulin in medically presentable form), was manufactured by M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited (Torrent) and supplied to the assessee company. The raw material was supplied by a foreign company NOVA Nordisk, Denmark. Torrent pursuant to the contract, was required to sell entire output only to the assessee company in India.
The language in section 55A does not refer the ‘value of consideration’ but only uses the term ‘Fair Market value’. So the scope of the section gets con-fined to determine the fair market value of a capital asset only. Thus, considering the language of section 48 the value so deter¬mined cannot be substituted for ‘Full value of consideration’. – Section 50C states that the AO can refer to DVO u/s. 55A only if the assessee claims that the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeds their fair market value or the value so adopted by stamp valuation authority has not been disputed by any authority, Court or High Court.
The Advance rulings can be sought on any question of law or fact specified in the application in relation to a transaction which has been undertaken, or is proposed to be undertaken, by the non¬resident applicant. Even a resident applicant may seek rulings regarding tax liability of a non¬resident in relation to a transaction with the resident applicant. In case of a public sector undertaking advance rulings may be sought on an issue of fact or law relating to computation of total income, pending before an Income-tax Authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
Whether adjustment should be restricted only to the international transactions or can be extended to the entire turnover of the taxpayer? 2. Are the books of accounts liable to be rejected if there is a transfer pricing adjustment? 3. Prior to 1.10.2009, is the benefit of standard deduction of-+5% under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act available to the taxpayer?
Whether the interest on income-tax refund is to be considered as interest income falling within Article 11(2) of the tax treaty or as interest income attributable to permanent establishment or fixed base in India falling under Article 11(5) read with Article 7 of the tax treaty? 2. whether the expression ‘attributable’ as used in Article 11(5) of the tax treaty has to be construed as equivalent / narrower to the term ‘effectively connected’ as used under Interest Article in other tax treaties with India and thereby squarely covered by the Special Bench decision of Clough Engineering Ltd.
Petitioner had filed the application for registration on 23rd September, 2006 after the 2002, Scheme had come to an end, as the scheme was applicable only upto 31 st March, 2006. The industrial park set up by them was not operational/functional by 31st March, 2006. It became operational on a subsequent date. The completion certificate for the said park issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation is dated 29th August, 2007. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim notification under the 2002, Scheme.
