The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Oracle India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009-TIOL-540-ITAT-DEL) (the taxpayer) held that section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) overrides the provisions relating to computation of business income only and thus in relation to international transactions, the specific provisions embodied in Chapter X (section 92 – 92F) shall override the general provisions embodied in section 40A of the Act. Hence, once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepts the arm’s length character of any international transaction, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not make an adjustment in relation to that transaction under section 40A(2) of the Act.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of JCIT v. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (2009-TIOL-712-ITAT-MUM) has held that the foreign company having Permanent Establishment (PE) in India cannot be taxed at the rate applicable to domestic company in view of insertion of Explanation 1 to section 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962. Accordingly, it will have to pay tax at the rate prescribed in the Finance Act (i.e. at higher rate) even if a taxpayer is covered by the provisions of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty).
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT Vs United Motors (I) Ltd. (2009-TIOL-693-ITAT-MUM) has held that income from transfer of a leased premises without transferring its own business amounts to extinguishment of the taxpayer’s right in the capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
an effective enforcement of provisions like 397/398 of the Act and the protection of rights of all shareholders without any scope for misuse or abuse is very important for the growth of industry or the corporate world. It is true that we have good regulations regulating the functioning of listed public companies, but, a good focus also to be made on the regulations governing private limited companies and especially the rights of shareholders in a private limited companies and unlisted public companies.
Its that time of the year when we are busy reflecting on our past and setting new goals for our future. Its that time of the year when fresh resolutions are being listed and plans for achieving greater prosperity are being inked. Welcome to 2010 the last year of the first decade of the new millennium. The New Year is a fresh beginning, a beginning that is filled with positive prospects for all of us. It is frequently said that ‘stronger the foundation, higher the building’.
Company Law is very complicated and interesting subject. If we look at all the corporate regulations or law, it is very clear that it focuses mainly on the interests of the shareholders. The liability of the members is limited in limited companies and as such the shareholders will be clueless often when their investment in the Company is not properly managed.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs took up a comprehensive revision of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) in 2004 keeping in view that not only had the number of companies in India expanded from about 30,000 in 1956 to nearly 7 lakhs, Indian companies were also mobilizing resources at a scale unimaginable even a decade ago, continuously entering into and bringing new activities into the fold of the Indian economy as well as Internationally.
IN Hyderabad Zone during the year 2009, investigations in 66 cases have been completed and in the cases where sufficient evidence has been collected, charge-sheets have been laid in the corresponding jurisdictional courts. These include the Satyam Scam Case, Cases pertaining to the public servants belonging to South Central Railways, Income Tax department, Department of Posts, Railway Protection Force, South Western Railways for demanding & accepting illegal Gratification,
Last week, CBDT issued a notification on how each perquisite provided to a salaried employee should be taxed. It is applicable with retrospective effect, from April 1 2009. The guidelines cover every perk: home accommodation to gifts to educational benefits. The most important change, though, is taxation of car facilities.
This article summarizes recent ruling of the Madras High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v M/s Hi Tech Arai Limited (Taxpayer) [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 670 and 671 of 2009] on the issue of allowability of additional depreciation on newly set-up windmills, under the Indian Tax Law (ITL),
