The sum paid was also not in the nature of compensation because there was no obligation on M/s Gillette Company USA, under any contract to compensate the assessee. Under these facts we do not find infirmity in the decision of the first appellate authority in treating the amount of Rs. 108.49 crores out of an aggregate addition of Rs. 118.49 crores made by the AO as capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax. In this regard we also find support from the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR in the cases of Smartalk (P) Ltd. (supra) and General Electrodes & Equipment Ltd. (Supra) wherein under almost identical circumstances addition made has been deleted.
It is hereby brought to the notice of the examinees and other stakeholders of the Chartered Accountants Examination that any request/correspondence relating to any examination matters be sent/made at the following address necessarily by the examinee himself/herself. Additional Secretary (Exams) The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ‘ICAI Bhawan’, Post Box No. 7112 Indraprastha Marg, […]
Moreover, in the subsequent year i.e 2008-09 & 2009-10 the cup method as adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions has not been disputed by the revenue. Further, when the relevant data are now available, as stated by the ld Sr counsel, then it is appropriate to determine the ALP by adopting the same method as it was accepted in the subsequent year.
The Board has decided to amend/revise the forms for filing appeal in the CESTAT. Accordingly, new forms for Central Excise (E.A.-3, E.A.-4, E.A.-5), Customs (C.A.-3, C.A.-4, C.A.-5) and Service Tax (S.T.-5, S.T.-6, S.T.-7) have been notified vide Notification Nos 6/2013-Central Excise (N.T.), 37/2013-Customs (N.T.) and 5/2013-Service Tax, all dated 10.04.2013 respectively. These forms have been made effective from 1.6 2013. Therefore, all appeals filed in the Tribunal on or after 1.6.2013 would be in the new form being prescribed.
The fact of approval of the payment by the RBI has been succinctly recorded by the TPO in his order as well. He still chose to propose adjustment in respect of full payment. In our considered opinion, when the rate of royalty payment and fee for drawings etc. has been approved or deemed to have been approved by the RBI, then such payment has to be considered at ALP.
LETTER [F.NO. 225/65/2013/ITA-II], DATED 11-4-2013 I am directed to draw your kind attention towards Board’s decision to review the Quality of assessments completed by the Assessing Officers during financial year 2012-13 in each CCIT/DGIT charge. The same finds mention in clause 2(k) of “Guidelines for Scrutiny Selection” [File No. 225/97/2012/ITA-II] for Financial Year 2012-13, dated 23-8-2012 read with clarification dated 20-9-2012.
We found that assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of B.D. Leasing and Finance Limited, (2013) 49(II) ITCL 148, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271B for non-filing of tax audit report cannot be levied in view of the CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10.10.2006, which provided that in case of electronic filing of return, tax audit report need not to be filed alongwith return.
It is the contention of the applicant that they have paid the amount in excess in the month of April 2004 and May 2004. We are therefore of the view the fact regarding excess payment is required to be verified by the Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly we waive the pre-deposit and remand the case back to Commissioner for decision on merit after ascertaining the excess deposit of Rs. 14,451/- as service tax as contended by the applicant. Stay petition as well as Appeal are disposed of by way of remand.
CA Ashish Gupta With the introduction of Negative List Approach under Service Tax Regime, the significance of categorization of taxable services was done away and all the services were grouped under two heads i.e. Taxable & Non-Taxable. Consequently, the payment of service tax was to be made under the Head – All Taxable Services. However, […]
Clause 4 of the agreement indicates that the Smt Shah surrendered the tenancy rights along with the property to the assessee. If that is true, where is the need for Smt Shah to be the signatory to the agreement in giving the property on monthly rent to the new tenants and why should there be a tripartite agreement? Letting off the impugned property becomes the matter for settlement between the landlord and the new tenant as per the terms and conditions of the land lord, which is not the case here.
