Deepak Cables (India) Limited Vs. DIT (International Taxation), Bangalore (Advance Ruling Authority)- It is the case of the applicant that transfer of the goods by LS Cables, Korea to the applicant being outside India, there is no territorial nexus for taxation regarding those off-shore supplies. It is pointed out that the applicant after obtaining the goods from LS Cables, Korea sells them to KPTCL for consideration. For its on-shore activity, including the sale it is taxed in India. Learned Counsel specifically requested as to note that sale by the applicant to KPTCL is taxed in India since it is taxable in India and that part of the contract is not involved in this application.
CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Maxim India Integrated (Karnataka High Court)- When assessee has been availing benefits u/s 80HHE, and applies to the STPI Director for the change in status, it cannot be denied benefits of Sec 10A on the ground that it had sought permission for a new unit and not the conversion of the existing one.
Recently, the Authority for Advanced Ruling held that pendency of a similar matter of the applicant in respect to transaction with a different party, before a statutory forum, is no bar to seek advance ruling in respect of another transaction.
The assessee was given refund while processing the return u/s. 143(1) and further refund was given after assessment u/s. 143(3). In reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, the refund given earlier became collectible from the assessee. The Assessing officer levied interest u/s. 234D on such excess refund amount. The learned CIT(A) held that the interest u/s. 234D is not chargeable in the hands of the company in reassessment proceedings.
Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- Tonnage income from the business of operating qualifying ships — Receipts emanating from the activities, which do not have a direct and necessary nexus with the shipping/ dredging activities of the assessee-company, cannot be exempted under the tonnage tax scheme.
Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs Vinod Kumar (Supreme Court of India)- Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they were displaced persons from Pakistan.
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (Supreme Court of India)- Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter called “PWD”) decided in September 1997 to construct the Bharatpur bye-pass for the road from Bharatpur to Mathura, which passed through a busy market of the city of Bharatpur. For the aforesaid work, tenders were invited with a stipulation that the work would be executed on the basis of Build Operate and Transfer (BOT). The total extent of the road had been 10.850 k.ms. out of which 9.6 k.ms. was new construction and 1.25 k.ms. was improvement, i.e. widening and strengthening of the existing portion of Bharatpur-Deeg Road. B.
DCIT Vs Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Limited (ITAT Hyderabad)- Risk adjustment disallowed, impact of intangibles on pricing negated, taxpayer estopped from subsequently pointing facts having material bearing, application of export earnings filter approved, etc.
L&T Transportation Infrastructure Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)- Roadside amenities cannot be treated as ‘infrastructure facility’ for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd VS Union of India (Uttarakhand High Court)- The petitioner consequently orally objected to the constitution of the collegium and submitted that there was a conflict of interest if the DIT-II continues to sit in the collegium since he was involved in the reassessment proceedings.
