« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Mock Test Papers Series - I & II for Students appearing in CA Foundation January 2027 Examination.  Income Tax Rules 2026: CBDT Introduces Revised Form 161 for Penalty Waiver, Clarifies Misreporting Categories and Taxpayer Relief  ITR Filing and Income Tax Audit Deadline Extended: 5 Critical Things Taxpayers Must Know  Filing Belated ITR for AY 2026-27? Know Which Losses You Can Carry Forward and Which You May Lose  CBDT Extends Tax Audit Report Deadline to October 21, ITR Filing Last Date to November 21 for AY 2026-27  CBDT Extends AY 2026-27 ITR Filing Deadline for Tax-Audit Cases: New Dates and Key Compliance Details  Foreign Assets Missing From Your ITR? Income Tax Department Opens One-Time Disclosure Window  Tax Audit Deadline September 30: Why AIS, TDS and GST Figures May Not Match Your ITR and What Taxpayers Should Do  Tax audit deadline September 30: Common mistakes taxpayers should avoid  Your ITR says ‘verified’, but the refund hasn’t arrived? 5 reasons why your money could be stuck  Missed the ITR Deadline but TDS Refund Is Due? Here’s How You Can Still Claim Your Money «  I-T moves SC on foreign firms' tax-liability ruling... Rev loss due to service tax evasion... » -T dept moves SC against AAR ruling August, 18th 2007 The Income Tax Department has moved the Supreme Court against the ruling by a quasi-judicial body which held that foreign firms are not liable to pay tax on assignment amount charged from their Indian subsidiaries if contracts are signed outside the country. The I-T department challenged the decision of Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) in a case concerning Swiss firm Honeywell Technologies SARL, which had received a fee from Honeywell Turbo India for supplying equipment to Tata Motors. In its appeal, the department represented by Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said that the AAR ruling would have a snowballing effect as this could lead to similar innovations by foreign companies. This would deprive the Indian exchequer of legitimate taxes, it said. A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhan issued notice to Honeywell Technologies asking it to respond to the petition. The AAR, on an application by the Swiss company, had early this year ruled that since the assignment contract with Honeywell Turbo was entered in Switzerland, the assignment amount was not covered under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Honeywell group had entered into a pact with TELCO (now Tata Motors) in September 2003 for supply of turbochargers for its passenger car. The group later transferred its rights and interests in the Indian business to its 100 per cent subsidiary Honeywell Turbo for 7.5 million euros. According to Vahanvati, the AAR was wrong in holding that Honeywell had no business connection in India and the assignment fee was a consideration received in lieu of transfer of these rights and interest to the Indian unit. The tax department has argued that AAR failed to evaluate the profit earned by Honeywell from sale of engines to Tata Motors and income to be earned from Indian operations. According to the petition filed through B V Balram Das, the consideration of 7.5 million euros received by Honeywell from its Indian subsidiary was taxable as this was profit taken in advance. The department has argued that payments made by Honeywell Turbo to its parent firm would be from the profits earned by it and such remittances would include taxable profits.