CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that Para 4.28(f) of Handbook of Procedure, 2004-09 relating to regularization of bonafide default by exporters using Advance Authorisations, cannot be applied straight away to normal imports where export obligations have been fulfilled.
Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]
Global Impex Vs Manager, Celebi Import Shed And Anr. (Delhi High Court) (i) The custodian has a lien over the imported goods, consigned to its custody. This lien may be statutory, as provided under the IAA Act, all the Major Port Trusts Acts, or contractual. It may also be relatable to Sections 170 and 171 […]
Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Daejung Moparts Pvt Ltd. (Madras High Court) View of Third Member The question raised is as to whether interest on delayed payment of tax as contemplated under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is automatic or the same is to be determined, […]
Commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders could not be treated as income taxable in India when parameters of DTAAs were applied to transactions in question. Also non-resident agents did not have PE or business connection in India. Therefore, impugned payment could not be held as taxable in the hands of non-resident agents in India and, therefore, liability to withhold tax under section 195 did not arise.
Charter Party Agreement making available the services of vessel by assessee-company to Port trust would tantamount to a deemed sale as there was a transfer of right to use the vessel as provided in Article 366(29A)(d) read with section 5C or section 2(j) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Thus, the transaction was liable to be taxed by the concerned authorities in the State of Karnataka.
Assessee-pharmaceutical company was entitled to claim sales promotion expenses incurred on distribution of articles to the stockists, distributors, doctors etc and the same was not hit by the Explanation to Sec. 37(1) in view of circular issued by MCI and circular of CBDT vide Circular No. 5 of 2012.
P. Singaravelan & Ors. Vs The District Collector Tiruppur and DT & Ors (Supreme Court) It is useful to recall that it is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, […]
If a company is having huge asset base, brand value, goodwill and presence in global market with significant R & D, then it cannot be compared with a company which is purely captive service provider in ITeS/BPO, having low risk and insignificant assets.
Assessee had disclosed additional income in return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A voluntarily, hence, there could not be any penalty under Expln. 5A to section 271(1)(c) as income disclosed by assessee in pursuance to search was not based on incriminating document.
