KSPG Netherlands Holding B.V. (applicant), is a company incorporated in Netherlands on November 6, 2008 with its registered office in Amsterdam. PG India is the private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on October 26, 2006, which was held by Pierburg GmbH until November 2008. During November 2008, Pierburg GmbH
Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pvt. Ltd. (applicant) was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Hard Disk Drives (disks). It has been supplying disks to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in India. In order to minimize the delays in the procurement of inputs from the applicant, the OEM proposed to put in place a Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) model. Under the VMI model,
Bench enumerated the following principles to be kept in mind while considering the applications for stay or waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Act. 1) The applications for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand;
The assessee had two units, namely, a steering unit and an axle unit, both of which were eligible u/s 80-I. While one unit was making profits, the other was incurring losses. The AO and CIT (A) took the view that deduction u/s 80-I on the profits of one unit could be allowed only after setting off the losses of the other unit.
The company being an unit located in Kutch District is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 8.7.2001. At the time of removal of the goods from the factory for export, the Company paid duty of excise as is evident from the statutory invoices issued by the Company. The Company accordingly applied for rebate under Rule-18
The assessee was a partner in a firm. Upon retirement, he received an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in addition to the balance lying to his credit in the books of the firm in full and final settlement of his dues. The assessee filed a return in which the said amount was not offered to tax on the ground that it was a capital receipt. No assessment order was passed.
In order to claim a bad debt as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income tax Act (Act) it has been a long drawn controversy between the Taxpayer and the Revenue whether in addition to write-off the debt in the books of account, it is obligatory on the Taxpayer to establish that such debt has become a bad debt, especially after the amendment brought in by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1 April 1989.
S. 10 (38) inserted w.e.f. 1.10.2004 provides that long-term capital gains (LTCG) on which security transaction tax (STT) is paid shall not be included in total income. The assessee earned long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of shares after 1.10.2004 in respect of which STT was paid. The LTCG was exempt u/s 10 (38).
In the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Supreme Court had to consider whether after the amendment to s. 36 (1) (vii) w.e.f. 1.4.1989, an assessee had to establish, as a matter of fact, that the debt advanced by the assessee had, in fact, become irrecoverable or whether writing off the debt as irrecoverable in the accounts was sufficient. HELD deciding in favour of the assessee:
Where a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts in the manner prescribed by the relevant provisions of the partnership law there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners.
