section 80HHC, Deduction under Section 80HHC, Bombay High Court, export turnover,deduction under section 80HHC
CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (Bombay High Court)- S. 28 (iiid) provides that “any profit on the transfer” of the DEPB shall be business profits. Under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28(iiid)” has to be reduced from the business profits. Under the third Proviso to s. 80HHC (3), in the case of an assessee having an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores, the profits referred to in s. 80HHC (3) can be increased by 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid)” only if two conditions are satisfied.
This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed.
The Bombay high court last week ruled that a labour dispute can be referred to the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of an unrecognised workers’ union. In this dispute between Bharat Forge Ltd and Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, the recognised union had 800 workers at the Pune plant.
The assessee-trust was a public charitable trust engaged in education of women. In the earlier years, the assessee was granted exemption u/ss 11, 10(22) & 10(23C)(vi). The assessee’s application for renewal of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was rejected on the ground that (i) the objects permitted the non-educational object of constructing an ashram
Life Insurance Corporation of India, the market leader in insurance sector, cannot charge any fee for transfer or assignment of its policies, the Bombay High Court has held.
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Essel Propack Limited [2010-TIOL-209-HC-MUM-IT] held that the technical know how fee paid by the taxpayer for acquiring non exclusive licence to manufacture some machines, which was confined to the territory of India for the term of five years during which the proprietary rights in the patents of the licence continued to vest in the licensor,
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.
