Delhi High Court has held that the situs of an intangible asset is the situs of the owner of that asset and therefore the transfer of such asset by a nonresident would not be taxable in India even if the asset was being commercially used in India.
The respondent admitted that the firm J.S.Bedi & Co. was charged with the concurrent audit for the period in question and that it had carried out the concurrent audit under his supervision but denied any fraud perpetrated for the period of the audit. But surprisingly it was also simultaneously pleaded that the purported frauds began in July, 2002 and continued till April, 2005 and went undetected
Issue Before Court The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the constitutional validity of Section 65 (105) (zzzzv) of the Finance Act 1994 (FA) whereby the provision to any person by a restaurant, by having the facility of air-conditioning in any part of its establishment serving food […]
Service Tax on manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption on job work basis with effect from 1st June 2015 is Constitutionally Valid: Delhi High Court. Issue Under Consideration These are three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 („FA […]
A power of attorney cannot insist on continuance as the attorney for the principal. If the principal does not desire the power of attorney to continue to represent the principal, the authorisation can always be revoked/terminated/withdrawn.
It is the contention of the appellant (A CA Final Student) that when he got the copy of the answer sheet, he found that the examiner had not properly checked the papers. It is also his contention that despite the appellant having written correct answers to the questions which also tally with the suggestive answer sheet, the appellant was awarded less marks for the various answers
In this case it was held that issuance of advertisements offering to take coaching classes and to impart of training to aspirants of the profession of chartered accountancy, cannot be said to be carrying on the profession of chartered accountancy.
The Assessee filed application with AAR for for determination of the question regarding taxability of its profits arising from offshore sales. The AAR rejected the applications as notice Section 143(2)/ 142(1) were already issued prior to the filing of the application before the AAR, the transaction in respect of which the ruling of the AAR was sought was filed before the date of the application.
An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.
As far as DTAA in the present case is concerned, the income earned by the Assessee would be treated as royalty only where it is received as consideration for the use of the equipment, i.e., industrial, commercial or scientific.
