As soon as the land of the assessee is requisitioned and stood vested in the State, he does not remain its owner and the mere inchoate right to receive the enhanced compensation cannot possibly be treated as assets and included in his wealth subsequently.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the High Court (HC) of Delhi in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL-187-HC-DEL-IT] on withholding tax obligation arising under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL) in respect of reimbursement of expenses to non-resident companies. The Delhi HC held that a payer is obligated to withhold tax only if the payment is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the ITL.
We do not find that on all the four counts, demand was raised on the ground of clearance of goods with intent to evade payment of duty. Demand relating to third count and relating to samples was clearly demand on account of legal issues so it cannot be held that there was intention to evade payment of duty. So penalty in respect of these two counts is not sustainable.
Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (ACIT vs Harashima Naoki Tashio, ITA No. 4634/Del/) has held that the employer’s contribution towards the social security in the home country of the employee is not taxable in the hands of the employee as a perquisite.
The Delhi High Court (CIT Vs. Dr. Percy Batlivala [ ITA No. 13 08/2008]) has held that in respect of the expatriate employee sent on deputation to India, the amount of hypothetical tax representing the difference between the tax liability in the home country of the expatriate and in India should not be added to the salary income of such expatriate taxable in India.
The assessee, a FII based in UK, applied for an advance ruling on whether the profits arising to it from purchase and sale of Indian securities was “business profits” and whether in the absence of a ‘permanent establishment’ in India, the said profits were chargeable to tax under the India-UK DTAA.
The assessee, a Third Party Administrator (TPA), provided services such as hospitalization services, cashless access services and services in connection with the processing and settlement of claims and making payment to hospitals to holders of health insurance policies issued by insurance companies.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Quash
Therefore, since it has been held in this judgement that it is imperative on part of the respondents to issue order under section 127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed.
The assessee, an exporter, claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and interest in the EEFC account on the ground that it was part of business income and arose from exports. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim though the Tribunal allowed it.
