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.
Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof:
Delhi High Court on Thursday said the National Stock Exchange was a public authority and was bound to reveal information under the Right to Information Act. Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed NSE’s plea that it could not be forced to disclose information under the transparency law since it was an autonomous body and not controlled by the government.
Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited employers’ as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules, but before date of filing return.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT v. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited [2010-TIOL-124-HC-DEL-IT] on the issue of whether the year in which trial production starts can be considered as initial Assessment Year (AY) for claiming benefit under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after relying on various judicial precedents held that the initial year is the year in which the commercial production starts and not trial production.
The assessee, an Indian company remitted mobilization & demobilization charges of Rs. 8.65 crs by way of reimbursement to its parent company, a company based in Netherlands. The assessee applied to the AO u/s 195 (2) for a Nil withholding rate though the AO held that tax had to be deducted at 11%.
Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL-139-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue whether the discount retained by Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs) on sale of Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards or recharge coupons belonging to the Taxpayer is liable for withholding tax, under the provisions of Indian Tax Law (ITL)
CIT Vs Aimil Ltd – It was held that if the employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Act and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on such delayed payment but could incur penalties also. Those Acts permit the employer to make deposit with some delays. Therefore, these amounts could not be disallowed under section 43B
The only reason which has been given seeking reopening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that suppression of sales have taken place on account of the fact that when average price of the closing stock is multiplied with the quantity of the sales in the year then the value of the sales would be at a higher figure than that as declared by the assessee.
