Pages
▼
Sunday, 18 October 2015
Issue of parking fee of aircrafts settled by supreme court in Japan Airlines. Earlier Delhi High Court in Japan Airlines and United Airlines said that S. 194I is applicable while Madras High Court in case of Singapur Airlines said that S. 194I is not applicable. Apex Court, however differed in its opinion both from Madras High Court which said that since the “'any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' have to be read ejusdem generis and it should take it colour from the earlier portion of the definition namely “lease, sub-lease and tenancy” and therefore limited meaning should be given to the words “ any other agreement or arrangement”. Also decision of Delhi High Court was dissented as it did not look into substance of the transaction as the fee was being paid for other facilities and use of land was incidental, Apex Court held that 194I is not applicable. Decision pronounced on 04-08-2014
Education Institution took certain vehicles on hire for carrying its students and staff from home to school and back . Since Expl III to S.194C (2) clearly provides that work includes carriage of passenger by any mode of Transport other than railways Tribunal is justified in invoking 194C -Lotus Valley Edu Soc. (All HC ) 12.09.13 [45 TMC 37]
Commission income of Indian company allowed to retained with U.S. client with RBI permission and to be utilized for purchase of capital goods. Due to devaluation of rupee cost of capital goods when realized resulted in profit on remittances .HC order that character of income changed on being reserved for capital goods hence profit is capital in nature-Tata Locomotive &Engg co.ltd.60 ITR405(SC)13.1.66
Merely charging Fee resulting in surplus does not ipso facto mean that activities are commercial in nature
ICAI
347 ITR 99(DEL)
CA
Study Circle 347 ITR 321 (Mad)
Tolani Education Soc 259 CTR 26 [Bom ]
Beaureau
of Indian Standards 358 ITR 78 (Del)
Sabarmate
Ashram 362 ITR 539 (Guj)
Indian
school certificate exam 2014 TIOL 855
Indian international centre(Del Trib) 11-5-15 57 tmc 265 Section 263-Where AO issues questionnaire and makes specific querries it can not be said to be case of no enquiry -Malabar industrial CO.243 ITR 83(SC) -Green World Corn 181 Taxmann 111 (SC) -Sun beam Auto Ltd.332ITR 167 (DEL) -Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (DEL) -Gabrid India 203 ITR 108 (Bom) -Kanada Rice Mills 178 ITR 446 (P&H)
Purposive construction
a)In
some cases it becomes necessary for courts to fill in gaps as parliament choses
to leave in enactments- Lord Doe Parco in
Cutler vs Wandworth Stadium [1949] 1All ER544
b)In
Guiseppi v Walling 60 Harvard Review 372 LJ Frank- ineptness of drafting impels
the courts to fill in gaps -an activity which no matter one may interpret is in
part legislative
c)SC
in Director of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan & Another AIR 1994 SC 1775 approved above decision
Monetary limits for appeal-Application of circular to pending cases also
Monetary limits
for appeal – Circular 3/2011-Shyam biri works(All HC) 6.5.15 57 TMC 157-Application
of circular to pending cases also.
Other favorable cases
1)Ranka and Ranka(kar)352 ITR 121
2)Pithwa Engg.
works (bom) 276 ITR 519
3)Camco color
254 ITR 565
4)Smt
Vijay Kavekar 350 ITR 237
5)Madhokar Inamdar 318 ITR 149
6)Vitesses
tag co. 331 ITR 433
7)P.S
.Jain and co. 335 ITR 591(del hc)
8)Ashok
Kumar Manibhai Patel 317 ITR 386
Unfavorable
Decisions
Shambubhai Mahadev Ahir 363 ITR 572(Guj FB)
Varinder
construction co. 331 ITR 449 (FB)(P&H)
Kodanand Tea
Estate 275 ITR 244 (MAD)
John Chackola 337 ITR 385 (Ker)
Navbharat Explosive
337 ITR (36) 515 Chatissgarh
Held
Circular
has to be read with national litigation policy
Whose
purpose is to reduce litigation period from fifteen years to three years so
that valuable time can be spared for contentious issues.
-Full
bench of Guj & P&H HC have not
considered national litigation policy and Hence high courts applied literal
interpretation of circular.
-CBDT
Circular make no effort to review pending cases.
- Since
this is beneficial piece of legistation, pendulum is tilled more in favour of
assessee and impels courts to interpret the provisions harmoniously with
national litigation policy.
- Hence
circular held applicable to pending cases also.
|
No TDS sum paid to foreign agent for rendering services o/s India if did not have PE in India
Commission is not FTS and hence not covered by expl to
sec 9 applicable to (v)(vi)(vii) of 9(1)
Fluidtherm
technology (P) ltd. 57 tmc 87(Mad)24.03.15
faizan shoes 367 itr 155(mad)
Fanda
shoes [ita 159/2013](itat mad)
Deita
shoes [ita 909/2013](itat mad)
Supreme
cout on commission to foreign agents on exports not taxable
1)Toshoku
ltd 125 ITR 525 (sc)(1980)
2)R
.D. Aggarwal & co. 56 ITR (20)(sc)1965
3)Carborandum
co. 108 ITR 335(1977)
Tax Controversy Leaders (2015) in India declared by International Tax Review
1.
Rajiv Anand (Deloitte India)
2.
Manisha Gupta (Deloitte India
3.
Gagan Kumar (Krishnomics Legal)
4.
Rahul Mitra (KPMG)
5.
Sanjay Sanghavi (Khaitan & Co.)
6.
KR Sekar (Deloitte India)
7.
Rohan Shah (Economics Law Practice)
8.
SP Singh (Deloitte India)
9.
Naresh Thacker (Economics law Practice)
10.
Alok Yadav (Economics Law Practice)
11.
Sunil Badla (KPMG)
12.
ML Bhagta(Kanga)
13.
Soli Sohrab Dastur
14.
Arvind Datar
15.
Nitesh Desai
16.
Aliff Fazelbhoy
17.
Hitesh Gajaria
18.
Sujit Ghosh
19.
KR Girish
20.
Akhil Hirani
21.
Amit Jain (EY)
22.
Porus Kaka
23.
Dinesh Kanabar
24.
Kanchun Kaushal, PWC
25.
Pawan Kumar, PWC
26.
Ajoy Kumar Gupta, (Khaitan & Co.)
27.
Sunil Moti Lala (SML Tax Chamber)
28.
Himanshu Mandavia, KPMG
29.
Vinod Mangotra, KPMG
30.
Rakesh Nangia, (Nangia & Co.)
31.
Vikram Nankani
32.
Percy Pardiwalla
33.
Krishma Phaterphekar, KPMG
34.
Rohan Phataphekar, KPMG
35.
Alpana Saksena, KPMG
36.
Harish Salve, Black Stone Chambers
37.
Jayesh Sanghavi, EY
38.
Sriram Sheshadri, BMR
39.
Himanshu Sinha, Trilegal
40.
Sanjay Tolia, PWC
41.
Girish Vanvari, KPMG
42.
Vikas Vasal, KPMG
43.
Ajay Vohra
44.
Rajan Vohra, SRBC & Associates