sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
News Headlines »
 These 5 websites can help you file your ITR Income tax e-filing
 Here's why some retirees no longer have to file a tax return
 How to file different categories of ITR forms online Income tax e-filing
 Here are other documents you need to file online ITR Got your Form-16 for FY18?
 10 must have documents to file your tax return
 Know all about how to file ITR FY 2017-18
 Government extends sale of pre-GST goods with stickers of revised price till July 31
 All 7 ITR forms for assessment year 2018-19 activated for e-filing: Income Tax Department
 Check if new salary structure is income tax efficient
 GST refund drive extended till June 16
 5 income tax returns filing mistakes you must avoid

SC decision on tax for companies doing both agriculture and trade
January, 21st 2008
The Supreme Court has disapproved of the view of the Guwahati High Court and upheld the opinion of the Calcutta High Court on the question of applicability of Section 80HHC deduction under the Income Tax Act for companies which do both agriculture and trade.
The tax authorities had appealed to the Supreme Court against the high court judgments in a large batch of companies engaged in growing, manufacturing and exporting tea.
This composite income is covered under Income Tax Rule 8(1). It provides that 40 per cent of the composite income arrived at on making of the apportionment shall be deemed to be income liable to tax.
In this batch of cases, the question was, at what stage, Section 80HHC deduction is to be allowed before the 60: 40 apportionment under Rule 8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income? The assessees claimed that deduction against the entire composite income.
The authorities took the view that the deduction can be allowed after the 60:40 apportionment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Income Tax and upheld the latter view.
Owner has no control over government requisitioned vehicle
When a private motor vehicle requisitioned by the government meets with an accident, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation, the Supreme Court has held in the case, National Insurance Co vs Deepa Devi.
In this case, the magistrate of Rampur, Himachal Pradesh, requisitioned a vehicle for election purpose. It killed a boy. The heirs sued the insurer. The tribunal rejected the liability of the insurance company. The high court, however, held that it was liable.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the company, holding that the owner had no control over the vehicle once it was requisitioned and therefore the terms of the insurance contract was not applicable to the owner.
Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd allowed excise duty exemption
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the CEGAT and allowed exemption from central excise duty to Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd, a small scale manufacturer of riderless steel healds and flat steel healds. The company was entitled to exemption granted to SSIs under a 1986 notification.
However, the excise authorities found that it was using the brand name of a marketing company and they were related persons. Therefore, they held that the assessable value was the price at which the goods were sold by the marketing company and not the price at which the goods were sold to the marketing company by the manufacturer.
The Supreme Court found that they were not related persons and ruled that the company was entitled to the benefit.
Adhunik Synthetics directors held liable for debt incurred
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Sunil Poddar and other directors of Adhunik Synthetics who had been held liable to repay a loan taken from Union Bank of India while they were directors of Adhunik Detergents Ltd.
The directors concerned had left the latter firm and set up the new one. However, the debt recovery tribunal held them responsible as they had stood guarantors of the old firm. This view was upheld by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court.
SC upholds tribunals view on Mathania Fabrics case
The Supreme Court has rejected the claim of Mathania Fabrics and another firm in Rajasthan that they were not using power and therefore were entitled to excise concessions. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal had earlier dismissed their petitions.
The companies processed cotton fabrics and they asserted that they had not used power for bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, washing, drying and finishing before the fabrics were cleared.
They used power only in certain ancillary and incidental areas such as mixing of chemicals. The authorities denied the benefit claimed as power was used. The Supreme Court upheld the tribunals view.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multimedia Presentations Multimedia Solutions 3D Solutions Corporate Presentations Business Presentations Multimedia Presentation India M

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions