The much awaited new rules have now been notified by The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Notification dated 18 December 2009. The amended provisions will be retrospectively effective from 1 April 2009 onwards. The new valuation rules as prescribed by CBDT and the comparative analysis with the earlier perquisite rules (Rule 3) have in respect of accommodation provided by employer including in respect of accommodation in hotels is tabulated as under:
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. M/s Saraswati Holding Corpn. Inc. (2009-TIOL-529-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income from the sale of shares in the hands of resident in Mauritius. The Tribunal held that the taxpayer holding tax residence certificate of Mauritius, was entitled to the exemption provided under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 236 ITR 706 (SC).
The Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) has clarified the treatment of Central Value Added Tax (Cenvat) Credit in respect of stocks of goods whose value is written off in the books of accounts. It is not unusual that manufacturers are stuck with non-moving stocks of inputs such as raw materials and components, or semi-finished goods or finished goods due to change of models or change of processes or poor feedback from customers or obsolescence, etc.
In the words of our present Chief Justice of India,“….. the citizens’ faith in the judicial system will begin to wane because justice delayed is justice forgotten, excluded and finally discharged “ The quote certainly does not auger well if one were to look at pendency of tax cases in different layers of our judicial hierarchy – 28,000 cases in high courts with disposal rate of roughly 6000 each year. Ironically, the situation is worse in Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata & Chennai where the wait time ranges between 10-15 years. Not to forget the figure of 2 lac crores often debated in the Parliament as arrears of tax in dispute. These could be more staggering in the future.
An IPO is when a company which is presently not listed at any stock exchange makes either a fresh issue of shares or makes an offer for sale of its existing shares or both for the first time to the public. Through a public offering, the issuer makes an offer for new investors to enter its shareholding family.
Recently, the Special Bench of the Kolkata Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL-SB) while dealing with a case prior to the amendment to section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) exempting derivative transaction as speculative in nature, held that the derivative transactions will be considered as speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. Further, it was also held that the above referred amendment to section 43(5) of the Act is perspective in nature and comes into effect from Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.
A recent report by Finance Commission taskforce has clarified many issues related to implementation of GST in India. Though there are many new matters which were considered in this report, but there some variations were observed as of the matters which were recommended in first discussion paper on implementation of GST in India, issued by 13th Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers on 11th November 2009.
It must be understood that right to appeal is not an absolute right nor essential ingredient of process of natural justice. Supreme Court held in Vijay Prakash v. CC [1989(39) ELT 178(SC)], “Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions of the grant.”
The question is whether the terms of the contract as given above is for supply of labourers or is for doing specific item of work. If it is for performance of specified items of work, the same would not be covered by the definition of service since the service covers manpower recruitment or supply.
The Bombay High Court ruled that once the taxpayer’s submissions with respect to section 14A was accepted by a tax officer, the Tribunal cannot send back the same matter for the tax officer’s re¬consideration. Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of Topstar Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-458-HC-MUM-IT) has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was not justified in sending back the matter to Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) after applying the ratio of the decision in the case of ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd [2008] 312 ITR (SB) (Mum) since the submissions made by the taxpayer in this regard was accepted by the tax officer during the assessment proceedings.
