12. The applicant has given the details of legal proceedings that preceded the transfer of shares starting from the filing of Company Petition No. 19/2007 and 133 of 2007 by the Indian Promoters and by the applicant respectively before the Company Law Board (CLB). These Company Petitions were filed under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act for relief against oppression of minority shareholders
Burmah Castrol vs. DIT Mumbai The applicant, Burmah Castrol Plc. is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The applicant submits that during the financial year 2001-02, as per the directive of SEBI, it acquired 12,77,292 equity shares of Foseco India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FIL”), an Indian company, for an acquisition price of Rs. 221.86 per share and also as per those directives paid a further amount of Rs.49.1429per share for the delay in making the Open Offer.
The construction services used for construction of workers’ quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules.
The Joint Venture can be treated as an association of persons (A.O.P.) in consonance with section 2(31)(v) read with the Explanation to section 2 of the Act and liable to be assessed as such under the Income-tax Act. All the partners of J.V. have joined in for common purpose on their own volition to produce income which is shared in certain ratio. The J.V. is to be taxed in the status of an association of persons @ 41% net basis.
Applicant liable to pay Service Tax under (zzzza) for the residential units to be built by him. Applicant can not deduct the value of goods sold, while paying Service Tax @ 2% under the composition scheme. Applicant liable to pay Service Tax on the contract to build houses which is sub contracted. Applicant liable to pay the tax even when the sub contractors would have discharged the tax liability.
Whether the activity of booking the residential units to be undertaken by the applicant is a taxable service liable to service tax under the provisions of section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994? It seems that the question as framed lacks in clarity. The question, if literally read, is confined to the first step of ‘booking’ the residential unit but not the series of activities that follow the booking and entering into the agreement.
Assessee tried to take the benefit of the AAR of British Gas (I) Pvt Ltd….but seem to have failed..!!!! ! Income Tax – Assessee posted abroad for more than 182 days on deputation – DTAA – Income not taxed by the contracting state – Return filed and tax paid in India – Later contended that since he was non-resident during the FY, his income was not taxable in India – Since his income was not brought to tax in the contracting state, such income is taxable in India as the purpose of such bilateral treaties is to avoid double taxation and not to exempt income from taxation altogether – Assessee’s appeal dismissed
The definition of advance ruling referred to above, makes it abundantly clear that it is concerned with determining a question of law or fact in relation to a service which is proposed to be provided by an applicant. The applicant admits in its affidavit that it has been providing investment research services since June, 2005 to the holding company (though claimed to be provided on a trial run basis) and is being paid for such services as per the agreement of December, 2005.
M/s MACK INSURANCE AUXILIARY SERVICES (P) LTD- Advance Ruling – The application is rejected as not maintainable since the applicant do not fall in the category of organisation who can seek advance ruling in terms of Section 96A(C) and 96C(2) of the Finance Act. 1994.
Advance Ruling – The definition of advance ruling makes it abundantly clear that it is concerned with determination of the question of law or fact in relation to service which is proposed to be provided by the applicant- In as much as in this case the activity in respect of which an advance ruling is sought, is not the one which is proposed to be provided but is an ongoing activity, the application is not maintainable.
