The very purpose of having an independent regulatory authority like SEBI, and vesting it with statutory powers of inquiry, is to enable it to take prompt action in matters relating to issue and transfer of share; particularly, SEBI is expected to be the sentinel, read the fine print of prospectuses keeping the investors’ interests in view; it has both a preventive and corrective role to perform; therefore, it is not possible to place a narrow interpretation on the words “issue and transfer of securities” occurring in Section 55A.
here the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee under Section 140A is refunded, the assessee should be, on principle entitled to interest thereon since the self-assessment tax falls within the expression “refund of any amount”. The computation of interest on self-assessment tax has to be in terms of Section 244A(1)(b), i.e., from the date of payment of such amount up to the date on which refund is actually granted.
We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court distinguished the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of A & G Projects and Technologies Limited Vs. State of Karnataka (2009 (2) SCC 326] and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Jadhavjee Laljee Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1989 (74) STC 201 (DB)].
There was no transfer of copyright or the right to use the copyright by the foreign company to the tax payer and therefore the payment would not fall within article 13(3)(c) of the Tax Treaty. The reference in Article 13(3)(c) is to “any copyright” and it is not a reference to “any right”. Hence, the payment cannot be said to be in the nature of royalty payment.
The assessee manufactured cars using the brand name Maruti. It entered into an agreement with Suzuki, Japan, pursuant to which it began manufacturing cars using the brand name Suzuki. The TPO issued a show-cause notice in which he alleged that the substitution of the brand name Maruti for the name Suzuki meant that the assessee had soldthe Maruti brand to Suzuki. On that basis, he determined the arms length sale proceeds at Rs. 4,420 crores.
Delhi High Court Ruling: If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited (2010-TIOL-361-HC-DEL-IT)]
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.
