In the instant case, the contributors, namely, the members of the assessee made contributions, which have been kept in fixed deposit with third party banks and those third party banks have contributed to the members fund. Accordingly, the members fund have been expanded not by the contributors/members, but by a third party.
Article 7 of DTAA requires a non-resident US enterprise to have a permanent establishment in India for being taxed in India, otherwise it is not taxable in any view of the said treaty, even it received any remuneration in connection with any matter provided in Section 44BB of the Act. In the judgment referred to above,
Assessee is a non-resident company. It entered into a contract with an Indian Company, but agreed to provide administrative and personnel support outside India. It noticed that the payment, pursuant to the contract, was received outside India. The Tribunal held that the said contract did not show that the administrative and the support services provided under the contract were absolutely necessary for providing offshore construction and installation activities for Tapti and Panna field development. The Tribunal found that there was nothing to establish direct or immediate nexus between the services rendered in India and administrative and support services provided outside India. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that such income would not attract the provisions of Section 5(2), read with Section 9(1)(i) of the Act.
A look at the assessment order, in respect whereof power under section 263 of the Act was exercised, would amply make it clear that the Assessing Authority did not at all make any endeavour to ascertain, whether Rs. 96 and odd crores were received by the assessee for and in respect of services rendered by the assessee or the same was received only by way of sale price of goods/materials sold by the assessee, may be outside India.
There is no dispute that the employer has entered into agreements with the employees and thereby has taken over an obligation to pay income tax payable by the employees. If the employer was not obliged to pay such income tax, the same would have been payable by the employees in question. Such payment, as has been provided in Section 10 (10CC) is notwithstanding anything contained in Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Shriya Enterprises Vs. Commissioner,Commercial Taxes – , the court is the opinion that potato chips, being a processed vegetable, is liable to be taxed @ 4 per cent under entry 6 of Schedule-II(B) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order of the assessing authority, the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and are quashed. The revision is allowed. The assessing authority is directed to levy tax on the revisionist with respect to the potato chips @ 4 per cent instead of @ 12.5 percent.
CIT Vs. M/s Dehradun Club Ltd. (Uttarakhand HC)- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provision of charging interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & others 252 I.T.R. 1. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, but, at the same time, the assessment order must contain the imposition of interest and, only thereafter, a notice of demand could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
CIT vs. M/s BKI/HAM v.o.f. (Uttarakhand High Court)-Tribunal in the assessment order 1995-96 as well as the appellate authority in the assessment order 1994-95 have categorically given a finding of fact that the entire duration of the contract was from 27th December, 1993 till 26th June, 1994, i.e., less than six months. Article 5 (3) of the treaty provided that in order to constitute a permanent establishment such site or project should continue for a period of more than six months.
Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
