A short question which arises for determination in this Special Leave Petition is: whether the High Court was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Reference Application by the Commissioner under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
As rightly pointed out by Shri Pardiwalla, even a promise to render services at a future date would entitle the assessee for deduction u/s 80-O in view of the specific wordings in the section.
The very purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company. This being the dominant purpose of the transaction, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.
The third installment of know-how fee which related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, in Italy, including training of personnel, in Italy is revenue in nature, any interest paid in relation to delayed payments will also, have to be treated, as one, which is, on revenue account.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The question relates to the effect of Section 43A of the Act.
The provision of section 147 is not, in any manner, controlled by section 92 nor there is any limit to consideration of any material having nexus with the opinion on the issue of escapement of assessment of income; requirement of section 147 is fulfilled if the AO can legitimately form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; for forming such opinion, any relevant material can be considered and the order of TPO can certainly have nexus for reaching the conclusion that income has been incorrectly assessed or has escaped assessment; in such a situation, it cannot be held that the notice proposing reassessment is vitiated merely because one of the reasons referred to order of TPO.
Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) – Merely credit was taken by the assessee and not utilized and not taken any advantage of such credit, payment of interest is not sustainable. There is no allegation that the appellant utilized or taken any advantage of the credit and therefore recovery of interest is set aside.
Srivatsan Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. (‘Appellant’) is engaged in the business of licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Appellant entered into a non-compete covenant with its director, Mr. Srivatsan and paid a sum of Rs.10 million, on which depreciation was claimed, treating it as an intangible asset. As per the covenant, Mr. Srivatsan agreed not to carry on his individual business of general insurance survey, loss assessment, valuation of assets, etc. for a period of seven years and also to abstain from other activities which might jeopardize the business interests of the Appellant in any manner.
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon. The assessee company was carrying on the business as licensed surveyors and loss assessors under the Insurance Act, 1938. During the relevant year the assessee did claim depreciation amounting to Rs. 12,50,000/- in relation to payment of non compete fee arising out of a restrictive covenants
Burmah Castrol vs. DIT Mumbai The applicant, Burmah Castrol Plc. is a non-resident company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales. The applicant submits that during the financial year 2001-02, as per the directive of SEBI, it acquired 12,77,292 equity shares of Foseco India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FIL”), an Indian company, for an acquisition price of Rs. 221.86 per share and also as per those directives paid a further amount of Rs.49.1429per share for the delay in making the Open Offer.
