-
Service Tax Circular No. 149 - Service Tax Refund to exporters through the Indian Customs EDI System (ICES) (Click for detail)
-
Service Tax Order No. 2 - CBEC specifies documents required for Registration of Service Tax (Click for detail)
-
New direct taxes code unlikely in next Budget (Click for detail)
-
Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2011 has been extended upto 15th January, 2012 (Click for detail)
-
DIN-4 for furnishing PAN and to update PAN details has been extended upto 29th Feb. 2012 (Click for detail)
-
SEBI : Guidelines on Outsourcing of Activities by Intermediaries (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. M/S. SKIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS 3(3), ITA NO. 3419 & 3420/MUM/2010, DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2011, ITAT – MUMBAI
S. 194-I: Distinction between “hire of vehicles” & “transportation contract”.
The department’s argument that the assessee has hired helicopter/air craft/vehicle is not correct because these were not hired on a periodic basis or on day-to-day basis. Instead, the transport services provided by the transporters were availed of. The assessee paid charges on the basis of flying hours, cost of landing charges and refuelling charges, etc. The crew, fuel, maintenance operation licences, etc. were all under the control of the service providers and not under the control of the assessee. If the assessee does not enjoy control over the vehicles and if the running and maintenance expenditure is borne by the transport service providers, the contract is not one for the “hiring” but is merely for availing transportation services. Payment for transportation services is not covered by s. 194-I.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WEST BENGAL-V, ITA NO. 219 OF 2003, JUDGMENT ON: 02.08.2011, HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
The phrase “by way of advance or loan” s. 2(22)(e) must be construed to mean those advances or loans which a shareholder enjoys simply on account of being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. If such loan or advance is given to such share holder as a consequence of any further consideration received from the shareholder, then such advance or loan cannot be said to be “deemed dividend” u/s 2(22)(e). Thus, while gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to a substantial shareholder comes within the purview of s. 2(22)(e), a case where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by the share holder does not. On facts, as the advance was in lieu of the company being permitted to mortgage the assessee’s falt, it was not “gratuitous” and so not assessable as “deemed dividend”.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now