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.
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.
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean business profits as reduced by 90% of .. “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature“. The Tribunal took the view, on the basis of Bangalore Clothing 260 ITR 371 (Bom) that receipts towards recovery of freight, insurance
