In penalty matter under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the case of Union of India & Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others, (2007) 295 ITR 244 the Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court doubted the judgment of other two Judges of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, (2007) (291 ITR 519); but because one Coordinate Bench (which means the Bench of the same strength of Judges) cannot over-rule the decision of another Coordinate Bench, they recommended the formation of Larger Bench to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
The applicant is a non-resident shipping Company incorporated under the laws of Switzerland and is in the business of shipping contracts for the transportation of cargo worldwide. During the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the applicant entered into a shipping contract for transportation of cargo from Indian ports to China. The amount of freight for transportation of cargo from the Indian port to a port outside India was invoiced and received by the applicant.
Premium Punch:- At present, premium payment for a life insurance policy is tax-exempt provided the premium amount is not more than 20 per cent of the sum assured. Similarly, any sum received under a life insurance policy – be it money back at regular intervals, death benefit, maturity benefits, including bonus and loyalty additions – is tax-free.
A man is known by the company he keeps. But with the implementation of the Companies Bill 2009, a single person will constitute a Company, under the One Person Company (OPC) concept.As a structure for professionals, individual entrepreneurs, SMES and NGOs – the proposed Section 171 extends to Section 25 Companies as well – this is a godsend, as it insulates the shareholders personal assets from liability. But one wonders whether this Bill is the right platform or the timing is opportune. There have been too many writings on the Bill and its various dimensions. It is a critical piece of reform, which will be resisted and opposed by many.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee by holding that the discount on stock options was notional in nature and was not deductible either in the year of grant or in the year when the option is exercised by the employees. In reaching the conclusion, the main consideration by the ITAT was the argument that the difference between market price and grant price is only a notional expenditure. Where ESOPs are granted by overseas parent companies and the difference between market price and grant price is charged to the Indian subsidiary, the allowability of expenditure would require further evaluation.
Buying and selling mutual funds units on the recently opened trading facility on stock exchanges will not be tax-free. While equity schemes would attract securities transaction tax, debt and liquid funds would face capital gains tax. Capital gains in respect of transfer of units of ‘equity-oriented mutual fund’ held for a period of more than 12 months (long-term) would not be liable to income tax provided the transfer of unit is subject to STT. If the units are held for 12 months or less (short-term), the same would be liable to tax at the rate of 15% plus cess.
The Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2009 breaks away from its predecessor in many significant ways when it comes to treatment of losses. While losses from the head capital gains remain a taboo and will have to be set off only against positive income under the same head of income, long-term capital losses do not come for a harsher treatment vis-à-vis the short-term capital losses for the simple reason that no such distinction is contemplated in the entire discussion on capital gains except in the context of allowing the benefit of indexed cost on assets held for more than one year.
M/s. Converge Labs Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Converge’) is a 100% export oriented unit (‘EOU’) operating under the Software Technology Parks of India (‘STPI’) Scheme and is engaged in the development and export of software. Notification No. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 (‘subject Notification’), granted exemption from the Customs Duty to goods imported into India by a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme subject to certain specified conditions.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the CESTAT held that the software imported by Appellant was only modified packaged software and not „Customized Software? and would not be eligible to the exemption under the subject notification, which applies only to the Custom designed software. Hence, CESTAT upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. („the Appellants?) were engaged in the food and confectionary business. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sagar to permit them to run restaurants in the name of “Nirulas” as per the specified plans with regard to the location of the restaurant, area, interiors and other details. As per the terms of the agreement, it is the Appellants who decide the items that are to be sold by the restaurant, the method of preparation of the items, the quality and the prices of the items. The Appellants have even placed their employees in the restaurants to supervise the operations.
