Airlines Rotables vs. JDIT (ITAT Mumbai). The assessee, a UK company, entered into an agreement with Jet Airways under which it agreed to provide Jet Airways with two segments of services, first, to carry out repairs and overhauling of aircraft components outside India and, second, to provide spares and components in the period the components were being repaired.
Mumbai Tribunal Ruling: Fees for Technical Services, even if rendered outside India, are taxable consequent to retrospective amendment in Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010 (Ashapura Minichem Limited v. ADIT)(ITA No. 2508/M/2008)
Delhi High Court Ruling: If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited (2010-TIOL-361-HC-DEL-IT)]
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2010- TII-41-ITAT-MUM-INTL] in the case of J Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (Taxpayer). The ITAT held that receipts pertaining to transportation and installation contract executed by the Taxpayer outside India cannot be taxed under the special provisions, which provide for taxation of certain income of a non-resident on presumptive basis, if the income is not chargeable to tax under the general provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
Special Bench Tribunal Ruling: Entire amount of timeshare membership fee receivable by the assessee up-front should not be taxed at the time of enrolment of a member in the initial year on account of contractual obligation that is fastened to the receipt to provide services in future over the term of contract (ACIT v. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
BACHA MOTORS (P) LTD Vs CST, AHMEDABAD (CESTAT Ahemdabad)- It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s MIL India Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.) = (2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s MIL India, the main issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section.
Life Insurance Corporation of India, the market leader in insurance sector, cannot charge any fee for transfer or assignment of its policies, the Bombay High Court has held.
The assessee, an Indian company, entered into an agreement with a Chinese company for bauxite testing services in its laboratories (outside India) and for preparation of test reports. The assessee filed an application u/s 195(1) in which it argued that as the services were rendered outside India and the recipient did not have a permanent establishment in India,
Where assessee was not engaged in collecting and receiving goods of the foreign principal but it was engaged in procuring the customers for the foreign principal, the nature of activities of the assessee cannot be brought within the scope of definition of `C and F Agent’ under section 65(25)
Income Tax Appeal – Share Application Money Dispute | Abhisek Saraf’s Cash Contribution | ITAT Kolkata Decision | Penalty under s. 271D
