On the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that the proceedings in connection with the earlier application shall now be reopened and a decisive answer to the question should be given at this stage.
Gujarat High Court, when interest is paid on delayed payment, it can be treated as higher sale price which is converse situation to offering of cash discount because the transaction remains the same and there is no distinction $s to the source. Looking from’ this angle, the interest becomes part of the hire sale price and is clearly derived from the sales made and is not divorced therefrom
We feel that the Writ Petition’, have to succeed because the contentions as raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner are well founded. The only reason which has been given seeking re-opening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that suppression of sales have taken place on account of the fact that when average price of the closing st
Parties have settled the dispute. A query, however, is raised by the Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants regarding deduction of TDS on the interest component of the decree. Apprehension is expressed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants that under the provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act, on the interest component which is payable
Hence, no income from offshore supplies accrues or arises or can be deemed to accrue or arise to the Applicant in India under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The AAR also ruled that the Applicant does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in relation to offshore supplies. Therefore, no part of income from offshore supplies can be said to be taxable in India.
In an oral judgement pronounced today 12th March 2010, the Court held that while “works contracts” were subject to TDS under section 194C, “sales contracts” were not. It upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that the contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a “sales contract” which was not liable to TDS u/s 194C.
AAR Ruling: Referral fee received from an Indian based recruitment agency by a non-resident is not liable to tax in India in view of the provisions of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Real Resourcing Limited (AAR No. 828 of 2009)].
The assessee paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return. The AO disallowed the payment u/s 36(1) (va) and held that s. 43B had no application. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
The AAR held that the fee received by US Co from the Applicant is in the nature of business profits of US Co and the same is not taxable in India in the absence of US Co constituting a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the India-US tax treaty (Tax Treaty). Further, the Applicant is not required to withhold taxes under the Indian Tax Law (ITL) while making remittance to US Co as it has not derived any income chargeable to tax in India.
