Celltick Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) If the arms length principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India e find that the […]
Internet And Mobile Association of India Vs RBI (Supreme Court of India) We cannot lose sight of three important aspects namely, (i) that RBI has not so far found, in the past 5 years or more, the activities of VC exchanges to have actually impacted adversely, the way the entities regulated by RBI function (ii) […]
The issue under consideration is whether the rental income earned by the assessee is taxable under the head “Income from House Property” as claimed by the assessee in the return of income or under the head “Income from Business” as held by the AO in the assessment order.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Since in the transaction between the UFAC and TISCO, there was no transfer of property in goods to the UFAC and, as such, it could not be considered to be a sale under section 4 of the Sale of […]
Delhi High Court after hearing detailed arguments dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner and has held that Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically empowers the authorities to institute any investigation, inquiry, verification, assessment proceedings, adjudication, etc. under Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules.
ICAI was under an obligation to provide reasons to the complainant for its prima facie conclusion of the Chartered Accountant being member not guilty of any misconduct on the complaint made by a Complainant.
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited Vs Union of India and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) he note of approval of the Principal Commissioner was also perused by us, the only reason mentioned was that there was an amount outstanding of Rs. 5 crores odd against the petitioner and for the said reason, the […]
Where property acquired could not be attached prior to the commission of a scheduled offence such as criminal offence or introduction of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) unless the property obtained from the offence was held or taken outside the country.
Income from cloud services was neither taxable as ‘royalty’ nor as ‘fees for included services’ as the customers did not operate the equipment or have physical access to or control over the equipment used by the assessee to provide cloud support services and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc.
Assessee could not be held guilty for violation of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA, on the sole basis of the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain, which was retracted later on as none of the orders of the authorities, namely, the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal refer to any cogent material to substantiate the allegation of the commission of an offence under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA.
