Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (Delhi High Court)- It is critical to examine if the agent has carried out work wholly or almost wholly for the other enterprise, to determine if he is an independent agent under the India- Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The attribution of profit to the Permanent Establishment (PE) needs to be done on the basis of a Transfer Pricing Analysis.
The assessee has paid both the service tax and interest for delayed payments before issue of show cause notice under the Act. Sub-Sec.(3) of Sec. 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under Sub-Sec.(1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty under Sec. 76 of the Act.
DCIT Vs M/s Sri Shanmugavel Mills Ltd (Madras High Court)- The facts of the case, thus show that the provisions made was not tax payment of bonus but payment, as part of the wages and as an incentive for the performance of the workers.
Shyam Enteprises Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)-Amendment in S. 43 (3) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 does not make any change in the definition of the word ‘plant’, which remains an inclusive definition. It includes buildings or furniture and fittings, which are other than, and are not integrally connected with the plant. The building, which does not have separate existence, and is integral part of the plant, used for the purposes of business or profession, is not to be treated separately for depreciation.
CIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad ) -Section 11 of the Act envisages exemption of certain income of the trust registered under Section 12A of the Act. This itself may require certain scrutiny and applicability of the exemption at the hands of the Assessing Officer. Despite registration under Section 12A of the Act, it is not even the case of the assessee that without any application of mind, the Assessing Officer must grant exemption of whatever claim put forth by the assessee.
CIT Vs Manoj B Mansukhani (Gujarat High Court)- Whether where the assessee submits all the details to prove the expenses correctly, no dis-allowance can be made merely on the basis that stamp duty authority stating that the vouchers were stamped subsequently?
CIT Vs Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the instant case, the assessee-company has let out only a very small portion (i.e. less than 10%) of its office premises to the Directorate of Petroleum. Department of Energy and Petrochemicals and that too under directions from the Government.
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that tower sharing by Telecom Infrastructure companies with telecom service providers is not liable for levy of VAT, as there is no transfer of right to use. M/s. Indus Tower Limited V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes
It is well settled that, whether the transaction amounts to transfer of right or not cannot be determined with reference to a particular word or clause in the agreement. The agreement has to be read as a whole to determine the nature of the transfer. From a close reading of all the clauses in the agreement it appears to us that under the terms of the contract there is no transfer of right to use the passive infrastructure conferred on the sharing operator/mobile operator.
After going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec 43(B) of the Income Tax Act
