Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home

Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR


Accel Frontline Limited Vs CC, Chennai

(a) "What will be the classification and rates of import duties under the relevant Customs Tariff for the data recovered and re-imported in different media."
(b)  "What will be the assessable value as per section 14 of Customs Act 1962 for the goods exported from India for recovery of data and re-imported after recovery of the data." 

M/s One Stop Airline Vs CC, (I&G), Delhi

Setting up engine MRO Shop for servicing the aircrafts of Indian airlines operating scheduled air transport service/air cargo service

McLeod Russel India Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata

a resident applicant who is directly concerned with the issue of tax deduction at source in respect of payments made to the non- resident, is specified as one of the eligible applicants

the tax payable on a long-term capital gains arisen to Moron Holdings PLC on the sale of originally acquired shares of Moron Tea Company (India) Ltd. will be @ 10% in consonance with the proviso to section 112(1) of the Act.

even in respect of sale consideration arising out of the bonus shares, the tax liability of non-resident foreign company will be @ 10% only as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Act

V. Ravi Narayanan Vs CIT, Chennai

NRO deposit to be made by the applicant with convertible foreign exchange in a banking company which is not a private company, shall be treated as 'foreign exchange asset' under clause (b) of Section 115C of the Act;

income by way of interest earned from the said NRO deposit shall be treated as 'investment income' under clause (c) of Section 115C and shall be liable to be taxed at the rate of twenty per cent under section 115E;

the banks paying interest on the NRO deposit of the applicant are required to deduct tax at source at the rate of twenty per cent

Airports Authority of India Vs DIT, Delhi

The rate at which the tax has to be withheld in relation to the payments made to Raytheon company on the Software Maintenance Contract should be 10% , apart from the applicable surcharge
M/s Harekrishna Developers Vs CST, Ahmedabad

Service Tax on Real Estate Developer-Sale agreement of residential units is subject to service tax when construction is done after booking of units

M/s Harekrishna Developers Vs CST, Ahmedabad
Service Tax on Residential Construction
Kern-Liebers International GmbH Vs. DIT, Bangalore

Fair market value prevailing on 1st April, 1981 ought to be taken as the cost of acquisition in the case of bonus shares held by the applicant on 1-4-1981.the applicant can claim refund under Section 139  

WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd Vs. DIT, New Delhi

Receipts under the contract with GAIL are not in the nature of royalties.The income from such receipts are liable to be taxed as business profits in India and only the profits attributable to PE in  India are liable to be taxed  

KnoWerX Education(India) Private Limited Vs. DIT, Mumbai

Applicant is not required to either deduct any income-tax or to pay any such tax on the examination fees collected by it for APICS and AST&L and remitted to them as the same is not taxable in India 

Foster's Australia Limited Vs CIT, Pune

Income arising from the transfer of its right, title and interest in and to the trade-marks and Foster's brand Intellectual Property is taxable in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income attributable to the grant of perpetual and irrevocable licence in relation to Brewing I.P. is not liable to be taxed   

M/s Cushman & Wakefield (S) Pte. Ltd Vs. DIT, New Delhi

Referral fee received by Cushman & Wakefield, (S) Pte. Ltd. from Cushman & Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd., in terms of the referral agreement would not be taxable in India 

Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT, Bangalore

Amount payable under “BT Private Line Connect Service Schedule” – the agreement between the Dell US and BT America read with the Master Service Agreement is not in the nature of “fees for included services” under DTAA between India and US? 

Airports Authority of India Vs. DIT, New Delhi

Payment received by Raytheon Company in respect of software and provision of services of installation, testing and training shall be taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with DTAA.The said payment shall be charged as royalty and fee for technical services respectively at the rate of 10 per cent as per section 115A plus applicable surcharge and cess under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Geoconsult ZT GmbH Vs. DIT, Mumbai

Joint Venture is an association of persons (A.O.P.) in consonance with section 2(31)(v) read with Explanation to section 2 of Act and liable to be assessed as such under Income-tax Act- J .V. is to be taxed in the status of an association of persons @ 41% net basis

Small Business Corporation Vs DIT, Delhi
remuneration payable to the said Korean national by the Republic of Korea and/or by the India Liaison Office will not be exempt from tax in India in terms of Article 20 of the DTAA between India and the Republic of Korea
Anapharm Inc. Vs.
Director of Income-tax

Fee paid by Sandoz Private Limited, Ranbaxy Research Laboratories to the applicant in respect of bioequivalence tests conducted by it is in the nature of 'business profits' under Article 7 of the DTAA and the same is not taxable in India

Burmah Castrol Plc. Vs.
Director of Income-tax
tax payable on the long term capital gains arising on sale of equity shares of Foseco India Ltd, being listed securities, will be 10 per cent of the amount of capital gains
M/s VMT Spinning Company Limited Vs CCE, Chandigarh

the construction services used for construction of workers' quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules

Golf In Dubai, L.L.C Vs. DIT, New Delhi

Income generated by GID from the Golf tournament held in Delhi and Bangalore would be not liable to tax in India in terms of Article 7 of the India-UAE DTAA?
(i) sponsorship income and a nominal management fee from Indian as well as foreign sponsors and;

(ii) income from sale of merchandise at the venue and over the internet

Singapore Tourism Board Vs DIT, Delhi
Tourism Board is liable to pay FBT in terms of Chapter XII-H of the Act in respect of fringe benefits paid to its employees working in liaison offices in New Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai
ISRO Satellite Centre [ISAC] Vs DIT, Bangalore
payment to M/s. Inmarsat, UK, for leasing of transponder is not Royalty having regard to the provisions of Income Tax Act and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with UK and hence not liable to TDS u/s 195 of the Act
LMN India Limited Vs. CIT, Delhi

The payment made to LMCC in the form of interest up to the date of conversion of bonds into equity shares is nothing other than interest paid on the money advanced to the applicant or the debt incurred by the applicant and it satisfies the definition of ‘interest’ under Section 2(28A) of the Act as well as Article 11.4 of the India-US DTAA and it is accordingly liable to be taxed as income of LMCC under the Act and under Art.11.2 of DTAA. 

Intertek Testing Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT-X, Mumbai

Question 1. Whether on the stated facts and in law the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as “Royalties & Fee for Technical Services” as per the provisions of Article 13 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India & United Kingdom?
Question 2. Without prejudice and in alternative, if the answer to question number (i) is in negative, whether on the stated facts and in law the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

M/s Paradise International Vs Commissioner of Customs, Delhi
Whether the components namely Outer Shell (comprising 4 sub-parts) proposed to be imported for manufacture of Torch Light would attract Anti- Dumping Duty under Notification No.125/2003-Cus. dated 13.08.2003, wherein Anti Dumping Duty has been imposed on the Non Brass Metal Flash Light (in compact and SKD condition)?
Burmah Castrol Plc. Vs. DIT, Mumbai

The tax payable on the long term capital gains arising on sale of equity shares of Foseco India Ltd., being listed securities, will be 10 per cent of the amount of capital gains as per the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
While calculating the amount of long term capital gain chargeable to tax interest paid by the applicant to the shareholders of Foseco India Limited as per the directives of the Securities Exchange Board of India will also be treated as a part of the cost of acquisition of the shares

Mr. Mustaq Ahmed Vs. DIT, Chennai

The income derived by the applicant out of the purchase and export activities undertaken by him attracts charge to tax under sub-section (2) of Sec.5 of the IT Act, 1961 as the income is received in India and has accrued in India. 

Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CC, New Delhi

Spectrum Analyzers are rightly classifiable as "other instruments and apparatus, specially designed for telecommunications" covered by 9030 40 00 of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1975

Dr. Virindra Kumar Raina Vs. DIT,  New Delhi

Investment income derived from the NRO deposit with State Bank of India made out of the convertible foreign inward remittances in foreign exchange is liable to be taxed at a concessional rate of 20% + applicable surcharge and cess

M/s Royal Energy Limited Vs CC&CE, New Panvel, Raigad (Maharashtra)

the blend of pure bio-diesel and petrol-diesel in the ratio of 60% and 40% would fall under Tariff Heading No. 38 24 90 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The process of blending would amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
 The above blend is fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 4/2006-Central Excise dated 1.3.2006, as amended by Notification No. 4/2007-Central Excise dated 1.3.2007

Ikea Trading (Hong Kong) Ltd. Vs. DIT, Delhi

looking at the nature of activities carried on or to be carried on by the liaison office of Ikea Trading (Hong Kong) Ltd. in India, no  income would accrue or arise or deemed to accrue or arise in India in terms of section 5(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (LTU), New Delhi

The swapping premium amounting to Rs.170,58,24,000/- is profit derived from the business of providing long-term finance (computed under the head ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’ before making any deduction under this clause) in terms of section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
specified percentage thereof is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act in view of the fulfillment of condition for carrying this sum to the special reserve


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources


  Copyright © 2006 | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments