In fact, the Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009] 19 STT 408 (Bom.) has more than adequately dealt with the entire issue and inter alia concluded that it is only after enactment of section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents; before enactment of section 66A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the petitioners-association.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Maharishi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA no. 222 of 2009) (Delhi) after following its own decision in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT [2010-TIOL-1 87-HC-DEL-IT] held that the question of tax withholding in case of payment made to non-resident would arise only if the said payment is chargeable to tax in India.
Delhi High Court has again granted stay to Home Solution Retail (I) Ltd. in W.P. (C) No. 3398 of 2010 on 18.05.2010 from payment of service tax on renting of immovable property. The stay is not on services in relation to renting but on renting per se.
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the High Court (HC) of Delhi in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL-187-HC-DEL-IT] on withholding tax obligation arising under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL) in respect of reimbursement of expenses to non-resident companies. The Delhi HC held that a payer is obligated to withhold tax only if the payment is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the ITL.
Recently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (ACIT vs Harashima Naoki Tashio, ITA No. 4634/Del/) has held that the employer’s contribution towards the social security in the home country of the employee is not taxable in the hands of the employee as a perquisite.
The Delhi High Court (CIT Vs. Dr. Percy Batlivala [ ITA No. 13 08/2008]) has held that in respect of the expatriate employee sent on deputation to India, the amount of hypothetical tax representing the difference between the tax liability in the home country of the expatriate and in India should not be added to the salary income of such expatriate taxable in India.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Quash
We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the counsel on the either side. The important fact which is to be borne in mind in the present case is that no advance tax was paid by the assessee at all in the assessment year in question on the plea that such tax was not payable as the assessee had set off the interest income earned
Whether on a true and correct appreciation of the relationship between the assessee and its distributors, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payments paid by the assessee is not commission as envisaged under Section 194H of the Act?” This question has arisen for determination for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05
This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal .s order dated 28.07.2006 passed in ITA No. 491/Del/2000 and relates to the assessment year 1998-1999.
