GoDaddy India Web Services Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) proposes to enter into a ‘Services Agreement’ with GoDaddy.com, LLC (hereinafter also referred to as ‘GoDaddy US’) located in Arizona, USA and incorporated in Delaware, USA. GoDaddy US is a domain name registrar
Marketing and promotion services: Applicant proposes to engage in promotion and marketing of GoDaddy US services in India. This would essentially include increasing the awareness of services provided by GoDaddy US and establishment of the brand GoDaddy in India.
It is observed that in this case, provider of service i.e. the applicant, is located in India, which is the taxable territory; recipient i.e. GoDaddy US is located in USA; the service to be provided by the applicant i.e. business support services is not specified under Section 66 D i.e. Negative List Services;
The question is very simple and clear as to whether the sale of the books to the Indian entities involves any ‘service’ and would attract the service tax liability. The answer is clearly in negative. It is therefore, hold that this service does not entail and invite any liability for service tax.
HC held that application software is an aid in the business operations rather than the tool itself. Therefore, the payment for such application software, though there is an enduring benefit, does not result in acquisition of any capital asset and it merely enhances the productivity or efficiency and hence, has to be treated as revenue expenditure.
The ITAT Bench Jaipur in the above cited case held that as per CBDT circular 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 , if the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade earlier years,the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year to claim that the security is stock in trade
Claiming a writ in the nature of quo warranto, Shri Santosh Sahu, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Jiten Kumar as Labour Commissioner is contrary to the statutory provisions, and for his consequent removal from the post of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
It is clear that the AO did not apply his mind independently and went by the order of the CIT. It is a settled law that a quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction and in the present case on the direction of a superior officer.
Section 150(2) enacts the situation where the provisions for assessment pursuant to appeal u/s 150(1) will not be applicable. Provisions of section 150(1) shall not apply where the reassessment proceedings would have been barred by time even at the time when the order, which was the subject-matter of appeal, revision, etc., was passed.
The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares. dividend income was earned by the assessee on the shares held as stock-in-trade. Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, on the tax free income earned by the assessee.
