The applicant is a non-resident Company incorporated in United Kingdom. It is engaged in the business of information technology services. The applicant acquired the shares in Zensar Technologies Limited (for short `Zensar’), an Indian company by making payments in foreign currency between 1963 and 1994, after obtaining RBI’s approval.
Assessee is treating the securities held under the, category ‘held for maturity’ as stock-in-trade. If there is appreciation in the market value as compared to the market value at the opening of the year and such appreciation is also accounted for. It is not claiming depreciation only for the years, when the value has gone down.
The assessee entered into a contract with Raytheon – Ebasco, a foreign company, and two of its’ foreign subsidiaries, for commissioning of a power plant. The assessee made payments to Raytheon for rendering technical services, providing ‘start-up’ services and taking ‘overall responsibility’ for the Project. The two foreign subsidiaries of Raytheon carried on onshore services
Cross appeals filed by the assessee, a State Govt. undertaking, and the department were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the parties had not obtained the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”). The assessee as well as the department challenged the decision of the Tribunal. HELD, reversing the decision of the Tribunal:
A ‘derivative’ is a security representing the value of the underlying stocks and shares and must be given the same treatment as that given to the stocks and shares. Also, s. 43 (5) uses the term “commodity” in a wide sense and covers ‘derivatives’.
The appellant appears to have performed service in India for ultimate consumption thereof in India by its clients/customers in India. The service is destined to exhaust in India and extinct soon after performance thereof. Post performance liability only remains to be discharged by foreign principal through the appellant in India. Thus the beneficiaries of services were located in India for ultimate consumption of the service provided in India.
Coming to the first point of difference it seems to me that even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee^ would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on this question is in C1T vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the assessment year 1971-72 and with the claim of development of rebate made by the assessee, Sec.33 of the Act dealt with development rebate. An assessee can c
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. reported in [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H); 156 Taxman 257 (P&H) are not applicable in this case and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not as per law.
EPCG-Before the aforesaid company availed of the benefit of 10% duty of customs scheme in April 1999, the government had introduced a 0% duty of customs scheme with effect from April 1, 1999. The benefit of the above scheme was made available for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. But no notification was issued to that effect in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
It was the duty of the assessee to show with exact figures the basis of calculating the amount of brokerage to be returned to the existing clients. In fact the assessee itself stated in its letter dated 17-3-2003 that it was having a somewhat raw system of deciding and accounting such claims and that these claims were decided on ad hoc basis by the director upon the request from the clients.
