We further note that in this case the loan agreement was for fixed rate of interest. The LIBOR has been accepted in decision referred above as the most suitable bench mark for judging Arms’ length price in case for foreign currency loan. Hence, adjustment as made by the TPO is not warranted.
The case of the assessee is that the assessee being an actor-model rendered modelling services for marketing the products of the assessee-payer of the fee. The services since not rendered for production of cinematographic film, the impugned payments are outside the scope of section 194J of the Act. Taking analogy that the “stunt actor” is not an actor, the modelling actor is also not an actor. The definitions and notifications ought not to be extended to cover the modelling services of this kind. These modelling services are not notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for the reasons better known to them. Therefore, the fee received directly by the Matrix India-a front company, on behalf of the Ms. Katrina Kaif, who modelled for marketing of the camera-products of the assessee-Kodak, does not constitutes professional services as the said modelling/acting is not done in relation to production of cinematographic film and she is not an actor for this purpose of section 194J of the Act.
It is to inform that during the Financial Year 2012-1 3, The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit [CHZU] has detected a total of 164 cases involving evasion of central excise duty/ evasion of service tax to the extent of Rs. 560 crores.
In the present case, the income tax return of the donor namely Dr. Chitranjan Jain and his wife Nisha Jain was filed before the Assessing Authority. No finding has been recorded by Assessing Authority or the CIT Appeal or the ITAT that return filed by Dr. Chitranjan Jain and the Nisha Jain were fake, fabricated or false one. Once genuineness of return is not in dispute then there appears to be no reason to disbelieve that the amount was paid by Dr. Chitranjan Jain.
Notice of dismissal was issued on 29-2-2012 to show cause as to the reason why appeal of the appellant should not be dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.
In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on puts or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003 S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2003- S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. In view of the above findings, we do not see any merit in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently the order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, as amended from time to time, Director General of Foreign Trade hereby makes following amendments in Public Notice No. 59(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 30.06.2011 read with Public Notice No. 10 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 11.07.2012.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraphs 2.1, 2.4 and 2.29 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14, the Director General of Foreign Trade hereby allocates a total quantity of 8,587 MTs(raw value) of raw cane sugar (at 98 degree Pol), out of non-levy(free sale) quota for export under tariff rate quota(TRQ) to USA for the US fiscal year 2013 (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013). This export will be through M/s. Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Ltd, New Delhi.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board hereby makes the following regulations to further amend the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992.
The present consolidation subsumes and supersedes all Press Notes ‘Press Releases’ Clarifications’ Circulars issued by DIPP, which were in force as on April 4, 2013 and reflects the FDI Policy as on April 5 2013. This Circular accordingly will take effect from April 5, 2013. Reference to any statute or legislation made in this Circular shall include modifications, amendments or re-enactments thereof.
