The explanation to section 4 of the Act defines dominant position to mean a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in the relevant market in India which enables it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. On examining the dominant position of the OP, it was seen that the OP had no legal existence in India and did not engage in any business in India. Further, the relevant market was fragmented with many players engaging in the activity of production/ manufacture of ARV drugs in India. Accordingly, the OP was not a dominant player in the relevant market in India and therefore, no abuse as envisaged under section 4 of the Act could exist.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the demolition of the building took place at the behest of the assessee and it is not an act of God in which event, it has to be said that demolition of house would fall within the definition of ‘transfer’. This aspect was not properly analysed by the ITAT in the case of co-owner since the subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collis (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. Since this aspect was not looked into by learned CIT(A), we deem it fair and reasonable to set aside the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) who is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law in the light of our above observations.
BSE, vide its Notice No 20130405-5 dated 05 Apr 2013, has clarified that DISA Qualified members are also eligible to conduct Annual Systems Audit of trading members who have availed of the IML/ Internet facility from the Exchange.
The Finance Bill, 2013 has proposed to amend the definition of agricultural land. Here is an attempt to analyse the impact of such changes from a capital gains tax perspective. Any profit arising from sale of a capital asset would be chargeable to income tax under the head ‘capital gains’ and shall be deemed to be the income of the year in which the transfer took place.
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.
