General Circular No.47/2011 I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s General Circular No. 08/2011 dated 25.03.2011 on the subject cited above and to state that the nominee director on behalf of Public Financial Institutions, Financial Institutions and banks on the board of companies should also be treated in the same manner as provided in the para 2 of the said Circular.
Pursuant to this amendment, no approval of Central Government will be required by the listed companies and their subsidiary companies, which are not having profits or having inadequate profits for payment of remunerations exceeding Rs. 4 lakh p.m., if the managerial person:- (a) is not having any direct or indirect interest in the capital of the company or its holding company or through any other statutory structures at any time during last two years before or on the date of appointment and
In this regard, it may be stated that sub-section (1C) was inserted in section 139 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), vide the Finance Act, 2011, with effect from 1.6.2011. For the sake of ready reference, the aforesaid sub-section (1C) is reproduced as follows: (1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any class or classes of persons
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7A of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (Mah. XVI of 1975), the Commissioner of Profession Tax, Maharashtra State hereby provides with effect from 1st August 2011.
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO, to allow the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of the profit of Hyderabad Unit without appreciating the fact that the branch has not carried out any manufacturing activity.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kaizen Commercial Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Whether merely because a telecom Company has got licence and has bright future, it can be presumed that contemporaneous value of share, irrespective of its negative net worth on the day when it got licence, is on higher side and hence any addition in the hands of share holder on presumptive basis is tenable – Whether in the absence of any business relations, any addition can be made in the hands of assessee u/s 28(iv).
ADIT v ACM Shipping India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – The taxpayer was wholly or almost wholly securing orders only for ACM UK. The freight invoice issued by the carriers show that the commission was paid by the Indian exporter to the taxpayer directly on behalf of the carriers. Further, the taxpayer was paying 50 percent of the commission earned to ACM UK for their services in getting contract with the ship owners and the customers. There is no evidence to show that the commission paid by the taxpayer was for services rendered outside India.
ACIT v Birla Soft Ltd. (ITAT, Delhi) -It would be wrong to consider different STP units of the taxpayer on a standalone basis, for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis, wherein the services provided by the units are same/similar and to same Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Further, Delhi ITAT also observed that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for the purpose of comparability, while examining the international transactions with AEs.
Satara Cattle Feed Industries (P) Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Pune) – The invocation of s 263 is unjustified if the AO has applied mind to the shortfall in income returned after considering the declaration of additional income during the survey in absence of any material or evidence to show that the reasons which have been accepted by the AO are incorrect or that the same was extraneous or false. Order of the AO must suffer from an incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law so as to be considered as erroneous apart from meeting the requirements of the expression “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue”, to justify the invocation of s 263.
