8. We find that there is no dispute about applicability of India Mauritius tax treaty on the facts of the present case, as also about the fundamental position that the provisions of the said treaty being beneficial to the assessee, the same will override the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the profits earned by the assessee from these contracts are business profits in nature and can only be brought to tax in India in the event of Mauritian company having been held to have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The question that we must, therefore, address ourselves to
Once the assessee has filed fresh appeal(s) memo which borne the signature in ink, date and place, etc., the CIT (Appeals) ought to have treated that defects removed.
One of the most challenging issues in TP is the taxation of income from intangible property. The issues may arise in several contexts, such as the appropriate royalty to be charged to a licensee of intangibles or the appropriate inter-company transfer price for goods manufactured and sold to a controlled distributor when the manufacturer owns the trademark for the finished goods in the distributor’s jurisdiction. The OECD has also recently announced that it is considering starting a new project on the TP aspects of intangibles that could result in a revision to the existing guidelines.
How can the sale prices to wholesale agents in two different countries be comparable, when the sale price to the final user in the one country is less than the sale price to the whole sale agent in another country, unless adjustment for the same has been considered; thus, the adjustments merely for volume offtake, credit period and credit risk, though material are not sufficient to make the sale price to AE in Thailand comparable with the sale to unrelated party in Vietnam
No appeal lies to SC u/s 10 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 against interlocutory orders passed by Special Court
Payment made to Avaya International Sales Ltd., Ireland (ASIL) in respect of activation charges is a payment for buying a standard product/software. The payment made to ASIL can neither be said to be as ‘Royalty’ nor is covered under the provisions of ‘Fees for Technical Services’. The assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to ASIL as the income of ASIL is not liable to tax in India for the above payment.
Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. Vs. CIT (Madras HC) – In view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Electricity Board (cited supra), after passing of an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act gets merged with the said order under Section 143(3) of the Act and the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act does not any more independently survive for rectification by the Assessing Authority under Section 154 of the Act.
Income tax – Sec 32(1) – Assessee-company claims depreciation on trucks registered in the name of Director – Revenue disallows – Tribunal allows the appeal – held, since the vehicles have been purchased in the name of the Director only for convenience sake and rents have been credited to the company’s account and even tax has been paid on the same, depreciation cannot be disallowed now as it is in effective possession of the company – Revenue’s appeal dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;
The Assessing Officer added the difference between purchase price disclosed in the sale deed and purchase price of the property adopted for the purpose of paying the stamp duty to the total income of the assessee as income from unexplained sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition by holding that section 50C is a deeming provision for the purpose of bringing to tax the difference as capital gain.
The assessee had received interest free deposit in respect of shops given on rent. The Assessing Officer added to the assessee’s income notional interest on the interest free deposit at the rate of 18 per cent simple interest per annum on the ground that by accepting the interest free deposit, a benefit had accrued to the assessee which was chargeable to tax under section 28(iv).
