Parties have settled the dispute. A query, however, is raised by the Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants regarding deduction of TDS on the interest component of the decree. Apprehension is expressed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants that under the provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act, on the interest component which is payable
Hence, no income from offshore supplies accrues or arises or can be deemed to accrue or arise to the Applicant in India under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The AAR also ruled that the Applicant does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in relation to offshore supplies. Therefore, no part of income from offshore supplies can be said to be taxable in India.
In an oral judgement pronounced today 12th March 2010, the Court held that while “works contracts” were subject to TDS under section 194C, “sales contracts” were not. It upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that the contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a “sales contract” which was not liable to TDS u/s 194C.
AAR Ruling: Referral fee received from an Indian based recruitment agency by a non-resident is not liable to tax in India in view of the provisions of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Real Resourcing Limited (AAR No. 828 of 2009)].
The assessee paid the employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC after the grace period but before the due date for filing the return. The AO disallowed the payment u/s 36(1) (va) and held that s. 43B had no application. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal, HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non- eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking). The SB held that the amount eligible for tax holiday was specific to each undertaking of the Taxpayer
The AAR held that the fee received by US Co from the Applicant is in the nature of business profits of US Co and the same is not taxable in India in the absence of US Co constituting a permanent establishment (PE) in India under the India-US tax treaty (Tax Treaty). Further, the Applicant is not required to withhold taxes under the Indian Tax Law (ITL) while making remittance to US Co as it has not derived any income chargeable to tax in India.
The assessee earned a profit on sale of shares held as stock-in-trade. This profit was offered as profit from a ’speculation business’ and was set off against a ’speculation loss’ brought forward from an earlier assessment year. The AO took the view that the profit from sale of shares was not from a ’speculation business’ on the ground that the assessee
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC which was allowed to the extent of Rs. 32.17 crs by the AO. The claim included DEPB license sale proceeds. The CIT revised the assessment u/s 263 on the ground that s. 28 (iiia) did not apply to a DEPB license and its proceeds were not eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a notice calling upon the respondent-assessee to pay the service tax in respect of the service rendered by it as a Dal Credere Agent. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, passed an order in Original No. 28/2003 directing the respondent-assessee to pay the tax and also the penalty. Against which the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 214/2003, where the Commissioner confirmed the order of levying of service tax on the respondent in regard to service rendered by Del Credere Agent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT. CESTAT has allowed the appeal holding that Del Credere Agent is not liable to pay service tax. Against which the revenue has come in this appeal.
