Central Bank of India v. DCIT- In view of non-discrimination clause under the India-USA tax treaty, the non-resident should be given same treatment as given to resident’s taxpayers. Accordingly, the payment made to USA entities cannot be disallowed on account of non deduction of tax at source.
In a recent ruling, ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is attracted in the case of a life insurance company. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of software expenses and of expenses incurred for increase in authorised share capital, is not attracted in view of the special provisions of section 44 of the Act read with the relevant rules in the First Schedule to the Act.
Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee?) is registered with Central Excise Department for the manufacture of pre-fabricated steel buildings, falling under Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee also avails of the CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 („CENVAT Rules?). From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, the assessee cleared its finished goods, namely, pre-fabricated building without payment of Central Excise duty to a unit located in Special Economic Zone („SEZ?) under a letter of undertaking. These goods so cleared to SEZ without payment of duty were regarded as exports and accordingly, the assessee filed six refund claims in respect of the unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. The refund claims filed by the assessee were rejected by the Original Adjudicating authority and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside by concluding that the supplies to SEZ units amount to exports for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules. The Department has filed the present appeal against the said order to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT?).
S. 234D inserted by the FA 2003 w.e.f. 1.6.2003 is in the nature of a substantive provision and applies only for the AY 2004-05 and onwards and is not retrospective. A provision by which an authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. ITO vs. Ekta Promoters 305 ITR 1 (SB) (Del) approved)
Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA protects the interest of non residents vis-a-vis residents. Article 26(3) provides that payment made to a non-resident will be deductible under the same conditions as if the payment were made to a resident. The exceptions provided in Article 26(3) are not applicable on facts. As per s. 40(a)(i), no disallowance can be made in respect of payments to residents on the ground of non-deduction of tax at source. Therefore, in view of Article 26(3), no disallowance can be made even in case of payments to non-residents even if the amount is found taxable in India in their hands. Herbal Life International 101 ITD 450 (Del) followed.
In answer to the question raised by the department as whether interest u/s 234D can be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 1.6.2003 it was held that as s. 234D came on the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003, it did not have retrospective effect.
Recently in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL v. Jt Director of Income-tax – International Taxation (ITA No. 3390/Mum/2009) (Mum), the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pertaining to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) would come into play only when the tax payer is required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Further, since banking companies are not required to prepare their financial statements as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act in view of the exemption set out under proviso to Section 211 (2) of the Companies Act, the tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11 5JB of the Act cannot be applied to a banking company.
Ruling in favour of a minority group of members opposing redevelopment of their housing society, the Bombay High Court, on Thursday, held that the developer could not seek their eviction without fulfilling the terms of the development agreement. Just
A member is not prohibited from gifting any amount to the society for the objects of the society. The principle of mutuality would not cease on account of these aspect. At the highest, authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules if any action is taken may direct an additional amount to be refunded. In our opinion, therefore, contribution by way of non occupancy charges, principle of mutuality would apply and consequently,
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
