Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES
 
 
News Headlines »
 Directions under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
 Securities excluded from GST ambit in revised Bill
 GST dilemma: Hope fades for new tax regime
 5nance.com launches tax investment platform
 Is government tapping your phone?
 Income tax department to use analytics to look for discrepancies in bank accounts
 GST Council fails to break deadlock over indirect tax regime, next meet on Dec 11 and 12 to hammer out differences
 Invoking Writ Jurisdiction For Income Tax Matters
 How to file income-tax returns online
 How Income Tax Returns Are Scrutinised
 All About New Income Disclosure Scheme to make Demonetisation successful

Bombay HC decision set aside
June, 08th 2007

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Sections 80-AB and 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act in the case involving Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. The high court had formulated two questions in the case and answered them both against the tax authorities.
 
It had held that unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years could not be set off against the profits from exports. It had also held that 80-HHC was independent of Section 80-AB and the latter did not control Section 80-HHC. These rulings were held wrong by the Supreme Court in the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax.
 
SC ruling on entertainment tax
 
The Supreme Court has held that different rates of entertainment tax on films cannot be imposed on the basis of difference in language alone. In this case, Aashirwad Films vs Union of India, a distributor of Hindi films in Hyderabad, moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of a notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh government levying different rates of entertainment tax.
 
He also challenged the validity of Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act 1939 under which the rate of entertainment tax on Telugu films was fixed at 10 per cent while on non-Telugu films it was 24 per cent. Rpresentations to withdraw the tax were rejected by the state government.
 
According to the distributor, discrimination on the basis of language violated the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
 
The state government, however, opposed the petition on the ground that the state government enjoyed great latitude in the field of imposition of entertainment tax.
 
While imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on the state of Andhra Pradesh, the court said: It has been brought to our notice that some states have been making hostile discriminations at the instance of the distributor of the films produced in local languages. Andhra Pradesh imposed the said tax on the said basis which is per se discriminatory in nature. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned levy cannot be sustained being discriminatory in nature. It is struck down accordingly.
 
UP govts appeal dismissed
 
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Uttar Pradesh government against the judgment of the Allahabad high court which went in favour of Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemical Corporation Ltd. The government imposed trade tax on phosphatic fertilisers by changing the notification and applying it retrospectively. The high court struck it down. The government appealed against the verdict.
 
Upholding the high court decision, the Supreme Court stated that according to the Trade Tax Act, an exemption granted to the firm could not be withdrawn by a subsequent notification with retrospective effect.
 

No notification having the effect of increasing the tax liability shall be issued with retrospective effect. Moreover, withdrawing the benefit from potassium phosphatic fertilisers alone, leaving out other similar chemical compounds, would amount to discrimination, the Supreme Court said.

M J Antony

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Website Ranking Website Ranking Company Website Positioning Alexa Ranking Website Promotion Website top 10 ranking website top 10 promotion search engine result promotion Strategic Internet Marketing Website Optimization Website Ranking Factors

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