An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.
Gujarat High Court examines N.K. Industries bogus purchase tax case. Court rules on addition quantum for alleged fake purchases & block assessment.
As far as DTAA in the present case is concerned, the income earned by the Assessee would be treated as royalty only where it is received as consideration for the use of the equipment, i.e., industrial, commercial or scientific.
The interesting question which arises in this petition is, “Whether the Municipal Corporations are bound to purchase items mentioned in Schedule – 1 attached to the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002 (as amended in 2004) (henceforth ‘the Rules’) only from the companies approved by the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (henceforth ‘the CSIDC’) at the rates approved by the CSIDC”.
mar Ujala & A & M Publication had being merged & Assessing officer disallowed cost of finance incurred for merger of above said companies & thus CIT(A), ITAT & Highcourt deleted addition made by AO & thus gave following decision: All the funds available at that point of time with the respondent / assessee were, in the course of the year, deployed in the business of the respondent/assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have disallowed the discount and interest on borrowing through commercial papers and non-convertible debentures.
The presumption is so compelling that comparatively a small amount of investment made by the assessee during the previous year period relevant to the assessment years 1999- 2000 and 2000-01 have grown into a very sizable amount ultimately yielding a fabulous sum of Rs. 1,41,08,484 which was used by the assessee for the purchase of the flat at Colaba.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that no Service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act to be levied on composite contract as there is no machinery provision for ascertaining the service element involved in the composite contract.
The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the above cited case held that a consideration receivable by the transferor which is contingent on happening of a future event the outcome of which is uncertain and cannot be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The Hon’ble High Court, after detailed analyses: Declared Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, as amended, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production of the documents mentioned therein on demand, as ultra vires the Finance Act and, therefore, struck it down to that extent;
declares Rule 5A(2) as amended in terms of Notification No. 23/2014- Service Tax dated 5th December 2014 of the Central Government, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production
