Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata (Dated: March 04, 2011)- Income Tax – Sections 10(33), 14A, 94(7) – Whether dividend stripping is allowable – Whether a premeditated transaction by virtue of which an assessee earns tax free income and squares off profits with losses is permissible if it is within the four corners of law. – Assessee’s appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;
The Finance Minister has in Budget 2011-12 proposed to introduce self-assessment in Customs. In it speech the Finance Minister had said that this is done to quicken the clearance of the cargo by Customs authorities and to further modernize the Customs administration. It was further stated that under this, importer and exporters will themselves assess their duty liabilities while fighting declarations in the EDI system. The Department will verify such assessments on a selective system driven basis.
The service tax on the services provided by an Authorised Service Station was made taxable from 16.07.2001 onwards. In the start only servicing or repair of motor cars, two-wheeled and light motor vehicles by service stations or centres authorized by the manufacturers was covered under this service. From 16.06.2005 onwards reconditioning or restoration services were also covered.
The Export of Service Rules, 2005 provides that there will no service tax on the export of services. In these rules, the criteria are prescribed as to what will constitute export of service. In Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 the services received from outside India are taxed. Now, Budget 2011 changes have been made in these Rules. The changes in Export of Service Rules, 2006 have been made vide Notification No. 12/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011. And similar re-arrangement has been effected in the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 vide Notification No. 13/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011. These changes will come in effect from 1st April, 2011.
Who says tax policy and tax planning do not go hand in hand. Here is a live example of frequent tax policy change and failed tax planning without any wrong motives. When the concept of limited liability partnerships was introduced in India two years back, it was advocated that LLPs are a better, easier and tax friendly option, compared to corporate entities .
M/S. Hyderabad Engineering vs State Of A.P. on 4 March, 2011 (Supreme Court of India) -Finally, the Supreme court concluded by observing that following scenarios are covered under “inter-state sales” “Sale” or “agreement to sell” occasions movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of whether such movement has been provided in the agreement) or Order placed before HO or branch resulted in movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of state where property in goods passes). Thus, it is not necessary that sale must precede movement of goods or the fact of movement of goods is mentioned in the agreement [Para 32]. Thus, even an agreement to sell can now result in classification of such transfers as “inter-state sales” and not “branch transfer”.
The amalgamation order issued by the Ministry of Petroleum is undisputedly dated 30.04.07. However, the said order specified 01.04.04 as the effective date of merger. Apparently, the process of amalgamation took considerable time and the same has been effected only by order dated 30.04.07. Such retrospective approval does pose certain practical difficulties. The effect of the order is that from 01.04.04, IBP ceased to exist as a separate company. That being the case, the transaction between IBP and IOCL during the interim period could not be treated as between a service provider and service recipient. As the order of the Ministry of Petroleum clearly mentioned 01.04.04 as the effective date of amalgamation, notwithstanding the date of approval given by the Registrar of Companies being 02.05.07, the specific date indicating the date of amalgamation as 01.04.04 should be accepted.
Bank wise List of CA firms Empaneled/approved for allocation of Statutory Branch Audit for Financial Year 2010-11.Bank wise List of CA firms Empaneled/approved for allocation of Statutory Branch Audit for Financial Year 2010-11 (Public Sector bank )
It has now been decided that a company shall not require approval of the Central Government for making payment of remuneration by way of commission to its Non- Whole Time Director(s) in addition to the sitting fee if the total commission to be paid to all those Non-Whole Time Directors does not exceed 1% of the net profit of the company if it has a Whole Time Director(s) or 3% of the net profit of the company if does not have a Managing Director or Whole Time Director(s).
In these appeals filed by the revenue, the only question raised is whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit under Section 11 5JB of the Income Tax Act. Even though in respect of one assessee, the provision involved is Section 11 5JA, there is no need to consider the issue separately because applicability of Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit is one and the same both under Section 11 5JA and 11 5JB of the Act. CIT vs. Packworth Udyog (Kerala High Court – Full Bench)
