Calcutta High Court in the case of PILCOM v. CIT , held that if any payment in the nature of guaranteed amount was paid to any non-resident sports association in relation to any match played in India, the provisions of section 194E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would be applicable with respect to deduction of tax at source. Furthermore, the HC has held that the provisions of section 115BBA of the Act which deals with taxability of non-resident sportsmen or sports associations, are independent from the other provisions of the Act and would override the generality of section 9(1) of the Act which deals with the accrual or assessing of income in India.
he Explanation to s.73 creates a fiction that the loss suffered by certain companies from the business of purchase & sale of shares shall be deemed to be speculation loss. The Explanation is not inconsistent with the object of introduction. The CBDT
An unnecessary complication has been created by the interpretation made of section 40 (a) (i) of the Income Tax Act read with section 195 of the Act by both the appellant and the respondents. First of all, a proper meaning has to be ascribed to the expression “chargeable” under the provisions of this Act. Section 195(1) says that, if any interest is paid by a person to a foreign company, which interest is chargeable under the provisions of this Act tax should be deducted at source.
Prudential Assurance Company Limited (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Company’), a sub-account duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) filed a writ petition (Writ petition no.866 of 2010 ) with the Bombay High Court against the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Commissioner). The Commissioner was seeking to revise an assessment order determined on the basis of a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (‘the AAR’) in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (AAR No. 678/2006). The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) after applying the AAR ruling in petitioner’s own case, cannot be regarded erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the tax department. Further, the High Court also observed that as per section 245S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the ruling in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund cannot displace the binding character of the advance ruling rendered between the Petitioner and the tax department.
The party if it feels that such recording of statement of fact is wrongly recorded it is incumbent on its part to approach the said judge promptly and without any delay or before the same feeds the memory and to invite the attention of the said judge that there is an error.
There is discretion available to the Company Judge in a creditor’s winding-up petition, both at the time of admission and at the post-advertisement stage; the Company Court may refuse to admit a winding-up petition founded on an ex parte decree if it finds the original claim or cause of action to be substantially mired in doubt.
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.
EPCG-Before the aforesaid company availed of the benefit of 10% duty of customs scheme in April 1999, the government had introduced a 0% duty of customs scheme with effect from April 1, 1999. The benefit of the above scheme was made available for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. But no notification was issued to that effect in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
With regard to the question as to whether Panna Bai was the benamidar of Dwarka Prasad Agarwala or not, the TRO, held that without doubt the transaction was benami and the real owner of the property at 13,Kalipukur Lane (Road), Sheoraphully, Hooghly, was Dwarka Prasad Agarwala and Panna Bai, wife of Dwarka Das Agarwala, was the ostensible fictitious owner.
In connection with search and seizure operations against the R group of companies, the Commissioner of Income-tax after hearing the assessees passed a reasoned order directing transfer of the cases of the assessees from the Income-tax Officers at Kolkata to Patna.
