The Supreme Court (SC) last week dismissed the appeal of Maharashtra against the order of the Bombay high court in an arbitration dispute with Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. The company was given Stage IV of the Koyna Hydro Electric Project and differences arose over the amounts due and other issues. The disputes were referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The respondents-partners were, in addition to their share in profits, entitled to salaries for services under the firms. The sole controversy turns on whether the sums so drawn as salaries were wholly liable to income-tax or only to the extent of 40% thereof which fell within the non-agricultural sector.
whether the show cause notice issued by the respondent is illegal and defective as the same did not provide for a time period of 15 days as prescribed in the statute and also because it did not disclose materials leading to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities justifying the issuance of such a show cause notice- Section 11 E (2) of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Asiavision Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT has held that royalty paid for the distribution and marketing of cinematographic film on DVD and VCD cannot be considered as royalty paid for TV or radio broadcasting rights and for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) ‘royalty’ shall have the same meaning as provided under explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
The Mumbai Tribunal disallowed the claim of the taxpayer in providing interest free loans to its overseas subsidiary. The Tribunal rejected the argument of the tax payer that the loan was extended on account of commercial expediency and out of its own fund (i.e. interest free).
This ruling provides guidance to taxpayers on the issue that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is disallowed by the Tax Authority, cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which would attract levy of penalty.
Recently, the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held in the case of Shri Anurag Chaudhary (AAR No. 839 of 2009) that an employee who has left India for the purpose of employment outside India would qualify as a non resident, if he was present in India for less than 182 days during a financial year (From 1st April to 31St March) . Further, it was held that the salary earned on account of employment outside India would not be taxable in India.
Section 43A, before its substitution by a new Section 43A vide Finance Act, 2002, was inserted by Finance Act, 1967 with effect from 1.4.1967, after the devaluation of the rupee on 6 June, 1966. It applied where as a result of change in the rate of exchange there was an increase or reduction in the liability of the assessee in terms of the Indian rupee to pay the price of any asset payable in foreign exchange or to repay moneys borrowed in foreign currency specifically for the purpose of acquiring an asset.
Section 291 of the Companies Act provides that subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorized to exercise and do. A company, though a legal entity, can act only through its Board of Directors. The settled position is that a Managing Director is prima facie in-charge of and responsible for the company’s business and affairs and can be prosecuted
ection 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 163 assess or re assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently
