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.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd VS Union of India (Uttarakhand High Court)- The petitioner consequently orally objected to the constitution of the collegium and submitted that there was a conflict of interest if the DIT-II continues to sit in the collegium since he was involved in the reassessment proceedings.
CIT Vs Mallikarjun Geo resources Associates (Uttarakhand High Court)- The word “production” takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.
DIT vs. Maersk Co Ltd as agent of Mr. Henning Skov – In the instant case, it was held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 234B upon failure on the part of the employer to deduct tax at source as the obligation to deduct tax at source is upon the employer. The assessee was only liable to pay tax directly under section 191 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that assessee, a non-resident foreign company, engaged in the business of providing services in connection with extraction and production of mineral oils, submitted its return of income declaring income at Rs. 2,11,79,270/ – for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The case was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
Whether, the ITAT has erred in law in holding that reimbursement of expenses on account of catering charges and fuel etc. to the assessee were not part of the gross receipts for the purposes of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the provisions contained
CIT Vs. Arthusa Offshore Company (Uttarakhand)- ITAT has erred in law in holding that word ‘tax’ does not include “surcharge” for the purposes of Clause (2) of Article 14 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with USA, and in upholding the decision of the CIT(Appeals), reducing the tax rate applicable to assessee NRC at 60 per cent instead of 65 per cent applied by the AO
Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Agricultural income Assessment years 1988-89 and 1990-91- Whether sale proceeds of plants raised in nursery on land belonging to assessee constitutes income from agriculture – Held, yes . Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Green Gold Tree Farmers (P.) Ltd.
