Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on facts. As per s. 40(a)(i), no disallowance can be made in respect of payments to residents on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Therefore, in view of Article 26(3), no disallowance can be made even in case of payments to non-residents even if the amount is found taxable in India in their hands. Herbal Life International 101 ITD 450 (Del) followed.
In answer to the question raised by the department as whether interest u/s 234D can be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 1.6.2003 it was held that as s. 234D came on the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003, it did not have retrospective effect.
Recently in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL v. Jt Director of Income-tax – International Taxation (ITA No. 3390/Mum/2009) (Mum), the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) would come into play only when the tax payer is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Further, since banking companies are not required to prepare their financial statements as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act in view of the exemption set out under proviso to Section 211 (2) of the Companies Act, the tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Act cannot be applied to a banking company.
Ruling in favour of a minority group of members opposing redevelopment of their housing society, the Bombay High Court, on Thursday, held that the developer could not seek their eviction without fulfilling the terms of the development agreement. Just
A member is not prohibited from gifting any amount to the society for the objects of the society. The principle of mutuality would not cease on account of these aspect. At the highest, authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules if any action is taken may direct an additional amount to be refunded. In our opinion, therefore, contribution by way of non occupancy charges, principle of mutuality would apply and consequently,
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
It was the duty of the A.O. to bring on record sufficient evidences and material to prove that the documents filed by the assessee were bogus, false or fabricated and the long term capital gain shown by him was actually his income from undisclosed sources.
These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(`Act’ for short) inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 (`Amendment Act’ for short
The moot question that arises for our consideration in the present case is whether, on the facts of the present case, the interest earned by the assessee on fixed deposit is assessable as profit of the business of undertaking for the purpose of computing the deduction available to the undertaking under section 10A of the Act.
Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for assessment year has escaped assessment. It is also well settled that words reason to believe used in section 147 of the Act are stronger than the words is satisfied.
