Supreme Court disposed off a civil appeal arising out of a special leave petition involving a transfer pricing dispute, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. v. ADIT [Civil Appeal No. 8457 of 2010].The Delhi High Court , in the taxpayer’s case, had earlier, inter-alia held that the obligatory use of brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise should be accompanied either by an appropriate payment by the foreign trademark owner or by a rebate to the Indian licensee. Furthermore, the HC also held that if the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by a domestic enterprise, being even an entrepreneurial licensed manufacturer, which mandatorily uses the brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise, are more than those incurred by independent domestic comparables, the foreign associated enterprise should provide arm’s length compensation to the domestic enterprise. Such compensation would be required for brand building and increased brand awareness in the domestic market, i.e., for creation of marketing intangible for the foreign associated enterprise.
Q of S. 40A (2) not examined as exercise is “revenue-neutral”. Transfer Pricing Provisions should be extended to domestic transactions to “reduce litigation” The assessee did not have any employee other than a company secretary and all administrative services relating to marketing, finance, HR etc were provided by Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd (“GSKCH”) pursuant to an agreement under which the assessee agreed to reimburse the costs incurred by GSKCH for providing the various services plus 5%. The costs towards services provided to the assessee were allocated on the basis suggested by a firm of CAs. The AO disallowed a part of the charges reimbursed on the ground that they were excessive and not for business purposes which was upheld by the CIT (A). However, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance on the ground that there was provision to disallow expenditure on the ground that it was excessive or unreasonable unless the case of the assessee fell within the scope of s. 40A (2). It was held that as it was not the case of the Department that s. 40A (2) was attracted, the disallowance could not be made (see 290 ITR 35 (Del) for facts). The department challenged the deletion. HELD dismissing the SLP
The service tax in the present case is neither on the material nor on sale. It is on the activity of financing/funding of equipment/ asset within the meaning of the words “financial leasing services” in Section 65(12)(a)(i).- the appellant(s) had moved the High Court in the writ petition challenging the validity of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the value of taxable services referred to in Section 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12)(a)(i) without exhausting the statutory remedy. The contracts entered into by the appellant(s) with its customers were not vetted.
service tax is a Value Added Tax which in turn is a destination based consumption tax in the sense that it is levied on commercial activities and it is not a charge on the business but on the consumer. That, service tax is an economic concept based on the principle of equivalence in a sense that consumption of goods and consumption of services are similar as they both satisfy human needs.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts of the matter analyzed the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 [SGA] and ISA and held that, the true and real meaning of a document needs to be ascertained to answer whether a contract for sale of movable property amounts to conveyance, and if yes, whether stamp duty is chargeable. The Supreme Court held that the essence of sale is the transfer of the property in a thing from one person to another for a price. As per Section 4 of the SGA, the contract of sale includes an agreement to sell and it may be absolute or conditional. The essential feature that distinguishes a contract of sale from an agreement to sell is that in a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer immediately whereas in an agreement to sell, the property is transferred at a future date. Further, an agreement to sell becomes a sale on fulfillment of the conditions of the agreement or when the time provided lapses. Under Sec. 2(10) of ISA, inter alia, every document by which movable property is transferred is ‘conveyance’. In a contract, if all the essential conditions of transfer of movable property are transferred, and it amounts to conveyance within the meaning of the said Sec 2(10) it is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 23 if there is no exemption from payment of stamp duty under Article 62 of ISA. The Supreme Court also observed that just because a contract document contains a clause on security, does not make the document a ‘Security Document’.
Brij Lal & Ors Vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (1) Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are applicable to the proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act to the extent indicated hereinabove. (2) Consequent upon conclusion (1), the terminal point for the levy of interest under section 234B would be up to the date of the order under section 245D(1) and not up to the date of the Order of Settlement under section 245D(4).(3) The Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B, particularly, in view of section 245I.
In a recent ruling Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (Taxpayer) (Civil Appeal No. 7518 of 2010) on the issue of deductibility of export profits from the net profit while computing ‘book profit’ for determining minimum alternate tax (MAT) liability under the Indian Tax Law (ITL) ruled that, while computing ‘book profit’, the net profit has to be reduced by the amount of export profits ‘eligible’ for deduction in the computation under the normal provisions of the ITL (normal computation) and not by the ‘quantum’ of deduction under that provision.
These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(`Act’ for short) inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 (`Amendment Act’ for short
The Petitioners herein filed Company Petition No.69 of 2006 before the Additional Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at Chennai under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging mismanagement and oppression by the majority shareholders of the first respondent Company. Various reliefs, including reconstitution of the Board
It is further important to note the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the distinction between software, being a set of instructions allowing physical hardware to perform instructions and Data, which is information that does not perform any
