Reference was made to the decisions of Apex Court rendered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board 35 STC 188 (sic). In this case it was held that electricity is goods within the meaning of section 2(3) of Central Province and Virar Sales-tax Act. This decision was rendered in the context of the language of a particular statute. As such this meaning cannot be extended to the facts of the present case
Agreement between the assessee and the Non Resident is only for rendering services which cannot be considered as technical services and as there is no PE to the said non resident in India, the amount does not accrue or arise in India and further as there is no need for deducting the amount under section 195, there is no violation of provisions of section 195 and accordingly the same cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia).
On the terms of the agreement, it appears to us, that it is only an agreement to share the product of the Research and Development allegedly without payment of royalty, but paying a consideration for the use described as the contribution towards the costs of the researchincurred by that particular party. This payment occurs only on use of the product of the research and not otherwise. This payment can hence only be understood as a consideration for the use of the process or formula developed by that member. It would satisfy the definition of royalty under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1 )(vi) of the Act. The applicant is either the recipient of the consideration or the conduit through which the consideration is paid to the concerned party.
The applicant is in the business of gathering, collating and making available or imparting information concerning industrial and commercial knowledge, experience and skill and consequently the payment received from the subscriber would be royalty in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. If so, the subscription received is royalty liable to be taxed as such under the Act.
In view of providing better services to its stakeholders and ensuring correctness of names approved through online mode (i.e. through STP mode without backend processing by RoC user), Ministry has decided to provide a facility for verification of such names by the RoC user on a real time basis for immediate action.
Q1. What is PMLA? PMLA refers to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Q2. When did the Prevention of Money Laundering Act come into force? The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has come into force with effect from 1 July, 2005. The Act was amended by Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act 2009 w.e.f 01.06.2009.
The Committee had made the following recommendations: (i) Immediate adoption of the proposed regulations for performance standards for power generation equipment; (ii) Levy of Custom Duty @10% additional custom duty – ‘Nil’ and Special Additional Duty (SAD) @ 4 (adding to 14%) for Mega and Ultra Mega Power Projects. Consequential adjustments in duty rates applicable for brownfield (expansion) projects to bring duty structure at par to Mega Power projects to also apply;
MCA adds another payment gateway through Union Bank of India for Credit Card and Internet Banking payments w.e.f. 20th May, 2012. For credit card payments, Union Bank of India shall be charging the transaction charge of 1.6% (plus applicable Government Charges) over and above the MCA statutory payment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of M/s DSR Steel Ltd against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity allowing revising of tariff for industries and others under an incentive scheme. The Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd of Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer had applied for revision of tariff from the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission. Objections of several industries and some hundred individuals were heard before allowing the revision. The industries argued that they had invested huge amounts on the promise of continuation of the incentive scheme prevailing then. The commission rejected the arguments and allowed revision of the tariff. The industries took the issue to the appellate tribunal in New Delhi, which rejected their arguments. Now the Supreme Court has also dismissed the appeal, stating that issues decided by the commission and the tribunal should not be reopened unless there is a substantial question of law involved.
I.T.O. Vs. L’oreal India P. Ltd. – ITAT acknowledged the fact that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is one of the standard methods in case of distribution and marketing activities i.e. when goods are purchased from Associated Enterprises (AEs) and sold to unrelated parties.
