Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Ltd., a non resident company Mauritian entity. Vodafone Holding is AE (Associate Enterprise) of Vodafone India for the purpose of transfer pricing provisions under chapter X of Income Tax Act 1961. Vodafone india is engaged in providing service in relation to Telecommunication in india.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Golden Corporation Services that it appears from the grounds of the appeal that appellant did not pursue the matter seriously. There is no allegation or any proof of the fact that the appellant was prevented by any cause far less sufficient
In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. CIT, High Court has held that that independent income having no nexus with exports would be covered by the words other similar receipts in clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act.
There is nothing in Section 80I(2)(iv) to say that the relationship in order to qualify for the term employment must be one of master and servant and cannot extend to contractual employment. That the concept of permanent or direct workmen is the precondition envisioned in Section 80I(2) when it was the term employs does not appear to be reflected in the statute.
CIT was entrusted with powers under section 12 AA to look into the activities of the trust to satisfy himself regarding the charitable nature of activities. Under Section 12A, the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Sri Guru Gorakh Nath Charitable Educational Society that power of the Commissioner to look into the objects of the Society and the genuineness of the same cannot be doubted when the basis is of non-supply of information.
Only amount which an assessee aggrieved by delayed payment can legitimately claim under the statute is interest and that no other interest on such statutory interest is payable. CIT Vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative (Delhi High Court)
As far as question No.5 is concerned, we find the factual situation the backdrop of which this question is raised to be most unfortunate, disturbing and dangerous to say the least. The Tribunal as a matter of routine goes on consolidating appeals.
CCECE Vs. M/s. Surana Telecom Limited (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) Rule 57L of the Rules which says that no credit of money on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products shall be allowed if the final products are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon
In the case of M/s.Thirumurugan Enterprises Vs The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that remanding back the case by Tribunal, without going into merits and asking the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the matter will not suffice.
