The only issue arising in the appeal was whether while computing the income from capital gains, the fair market value of the property on the date of sale could be adopted as against the sale consideration received by the assessee. In the facts of the instant case, the assessee had sold the property for a total consideration of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. The said value of consideration was accepted by the registering authorities and was not disturbed. The provisions of section 50C were neither applicable nor applied by the Assessing Officer.
In a recent ruling Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Ashapura Minichem Ltd. (ITAT) [[2010] 5 taxmann 57 (Mum.-ITAT)] on the issue of taxability of payments made by the Taxpayer for services rendered outside India, under the provisions of the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) as well as the India-China Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty) held that such payments are taxable in India both under the ITL as well as the Tax Treaty and the Taxpayer is liable to withhold taxes (WHT) from such payments.
under the India UK Tax Treaty (UK Treaty) reaffirmed some general principles relating to PE, the Tribunal further ruled that the Taxpayer does not have a PE under the basic rule or the agency rule. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to determine if any part of the consideration could be taxed as royalty for use of equipment by the customer.
DCIT vs. Indo American Jewellery (ITAT Mumbai) :- Assessee’s TP study cannot be rejected lightly, “comparables” have to be comparable on all parameters, no incentive to shift profits offshore if tax rates there are higher.
The assessee purchased shares of an Indian company from Alcan Inc, Canada. Alcan filed an application u/s 197(1) for issue of a TDS certificate on the basis that the capital gains was Rs. 317.71 crores and tax at 10% was chargeable. The AO issued a certificate directing the assessee to withhold Rs. 40 crores on a provisional basis subject to regular assessment.
The CESTAT (Ahmedabad Bench) in case of Orion Appliances Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad. [Arising out of Appeal No. ST/120/09 and order dated 07-05-2010J has observed that Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted in case where an assessee is providing ‘taxable output services’ and also undertaking ‘trading activity’.
The Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 01-01-2008 issued by the 1st respondent is in challenge. On a true and fair construction of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules, it is clear that where in respect of a works contract service tax has been paid, no option to pay service tax under the composition scheme could be exercised. There is no ambiguity in this provision. The entitlement to avail the benefits of the composition scheme is only after an option is exercised under Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules and this provision specifically enjoins a disqualification for exercise of such option where service tax had been paid in respect of a works contract. To put it succinctly, where service tax has been paid in respect of a works contract, the eligibility to exercise an option to avail the benefits of the composition scheme under the 2007 Rules is excluded.
TRENT Ltd and Future Value Retail Ltd have challenged before the AP High Court, the service tax with retrospective effect on renting of immovable property, brought in by the Finance Act, 2010.
A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 28.10.04 at the premises of a charitable trust of which the assessee was the managing trustee. The assessee admitted unaccounted income of Rs. 1.93 crores.
In fact, recording of reasons ensures that the authority has applied its mind to the case and the reasons that compelled the authority to take a decision in question are germane to the contents and scope of power vested in the authority. Therefore, giving of reasons by an adjudicating body goes to the very root of the process of decision-making or adjudication and therefore, it is not just a formal requirement but indicates that the adjudicatory body has applied its own mind to the merits of the case and also to avoid any doubt as to any perfunctory approach.
