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

Email | Print

Important Links         SC        HC        CESTAT        ITAT        AAR


Maersk  Global Centres (India)  Private  Limited Vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Special Bench-1) Whether for the purpose of determining arm's length price of international transactions of the assessee-company, providing back office support services to their overseas associated enterprises, companies performing KPO functions should be considered as comparable ? - 2) Whether, in the facts of the assessee's case, companies earning abnormally high profit margin should be included in the list of comparable cases for the purpose of determining the arm's length price of an international transactions?

Alkaben B. Patel Vs. ITO, Ahmedabad

Special Bench: Whether for the purpose of Section 54EC of IT Act, 1961, the period of investment of six months should be reckoned after the date of transfer or from the end of the month in which transfer of capital asset took place?

Shri Nanubhai D. Desai Vs. ACIT, Surat

Special Bench: Whether an ex-Member of the ITAT, is debarred from practicing before the ITAT in view of the insertion of Rule 13 E in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963?

M P Fashions Private Limited Vs. ITO, Mumbai

the provision of Fringe Benefits does not attract on the employees stationed outside India. - A bald statement conceived out from the details provided by the assessee cannot attract disallowance. To justify the addition on FB, the revenue authorities should have relied on some evidence to justify that a particular employee received a certain benefit. In the instant case, the FBT has been imposed on the assessee for the payments made to employees in Dubai on account of sales promotion. The revenue authorities have not specified anything to prove that the expense was either not for the sales promotion or were actually utilized by the employees. In these circumstances, relying on the Circular and the decisions of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that Fringe Benefit provisions are outside the scope for the employees stationed outside India.

Smt. Tupur Chatterji Vs. ACIT, Mumbai

the assessee is owner of two properties, one of which is Flat No.101, Marble Arch, Pali Hill, Bandra and the other is 203, Nestle-1, A-Wing, P.B.Marg, Mumbai. Flat at Bandra has been considered to be self occupied property and property in Nestle is vacant property upon which AO has applied ALV at 7% of book value of the property and computed deemed house property income of Rs.1,40,185/- - For buying aforementioned property the assessee had obtained loan from the bank for which interest of Rs.3,50,641/- was paid, which was restricted by the AO to a sum of Rs.1,40,193/- on the ground that assessee could not be allowed a cumulative deduction more than Rs.1,50,000/- as per second proviso to section 24 of the Income Tax Act

Shri Mohan Manoj Dhupelia Vs. DCIT, Mumbai

the Liechtenstein jurisdiction qualifies as an off shore financial centre due to a very modest tax regime, high standard of secrecy laws and further foreign investors had the opportunity to establish companies or trust with “HOST trust reg.” in the principality of Liechtenstein to enjoy the advantages of off-shore financial centre. As per the report Indian Investigating Agencies came across a number of cases where individual or entities from India were detected using banking channels of Liechtenstein to hide their illegal income or stash funds and it was only possible when India became signatory to a world-wide convention formulated by OECD an international policy advisory body which formulated global tax standards to fight tax evasion and concealment of illicit funds. It also provided option to undertake automatic exchange of information. It is a common knowledge that discretionary trusts are created for the benefit of particular persons and those persons need not necessarily control the affairs of the trust. Still the fact remains that they are the sole beneficiaries of the trust. Thus totality of facts clearly indicate that the deposit made in the bank account of the trust represents unaccounted income of the assessee, as the same was not disclosed by the these assessees in their respective returns in India, consequently, the addition was rightly made by the AO.

Shah Rukh Khan
Vs. ACWT, Mumbai

Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.2,28,88,530/- to the net wealth of the appellant. He has erred in holding that a residential house and jewellery purchased by the wife of the appellant from a loan given to her by the appellant were to be included in the net wealth of the appellant.


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