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.
The assessee, a consortium, was awarded a contract by MMRDA for the monorail project. The assessee filed an application u/s 197 for a certificate that MMRDA be directed to deduct tax at 0.11% on the ground that the percentage of total tax liability to revenue was estimated to be 0.11%.
The basis on which a certificate has been declined to the Petitioner under Section 195(3) is manifestly misconceived. The impugned order ignores relevant provisions of law, more particularly of Rule 29B, does not take into account the legal implications out of the MOU dated 25 September 2002 between the Government of U.S. and the Government of India and disregards issues which were settled in the past as a result of the Mutual Agreement Procedure between the two governments.
The proviso to s. 112(1) provides that “where the tax payable in respect of any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being listed securities … exceeds ten per cent of the amount of capital gains before giving effect to the provisions of the second proviso to section 48 (i.e. indexation), then, such excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the assessee“.
Ashoka Buildcon vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) :-An assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 27.12.2006. A reassessment order u/s 147 was passed on 27.12.2007. A show-cause notice u/s 263 was issued by the CIT on 30.4.2009 in respect of issues that werenot the subject matter of the reassessment order. The s. 263 notice was time-barred if reckoned from the date of the assessment order but was within time if reckoned from the reassessment order.
