The payments received by the Applicant from the Indian hotel owner for provision of global reservation services (‘GRS’) would be chargeable to tax in India under section 9(1)(i) read with Articles 5 and 7 of the India-Luxembourg DTAA as business income and is attributable to the Applicant’s permanent establishment in India.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Maharishi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA no. 222 of 2009) (Delhi) after following its own decision in the case of Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT [2010-TIOL-1 87-HC-DEL-IT] held that the question of tax withholding in case of payment made to non-resident would arise only if the said payment is chargeable to tax in India.
Recently, the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Essel Propack Limited [2010-TIOL-209-HC-MUM-IT] held that the technical know how fee paid by the taxpayer for acquiring non exclusive licence to manufacture some machines, which was confined to the territory of India for the term of five years during which the proprietary rights in the patents of the licence continued to vest in the licensor,
Recently, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) in the case of Laird Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-06-ARA-IT] has held that the fees received by the USA company for assigning contractual rights to the applicant for supply of products in India is taxable as business profits and in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) such consideration is not taxable in India under the India-USA tax treaty (the tax treaty). Accordingly,
Recently, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of M/s Amiantit International Holding Ltd. [2010-TIOL-07-ARA-IT] held that the capital gains is taxable only when the applicant derive any profit or gain in the form of money or money’s worth or which is capable of being turned into money has accrued or arisen to the applicant.
AAR held that income received by a foreign company for procurement support services rendered by its Indian office in connection with purchase operations undertaken by other foreign company in India, is taxable in India.
Delhi High Court has again granted stay to Home Solution Retail (I) Ltd. in W.P. (C) No. 3398 of 2010 on 18.05.2010 from payment of service tax on renting of immovable property. The stay is not on services in relation to renting but on renting per se.
As soon as the land of the assessee is requisitioned and stood vested in the State, he does not remain its owner and the mere inchoate right to receive the enhanced compensation cannot possibly be treated as assets and included in his wealth subsequently.
Even after introduction of concept of block assets, identity of the individual assets are not lost and the Assessing Officer can restrict the depreciation having regard to the usage of a plant.
In Shree Capital Services 121 ITD 498 (Kol) it has been held by the Special Bench that the amendment to s. 43(5)(d) is neither clarificatory nor retrospective in operation. Consequently, derivatives can be considered non-speculative u/s 43(5)(b) only to the extent they are for hedging purposes;
