« Top Headlines » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  New Income Tax Act: ITR forms to be issued prior to FY28, says govt  GSTR-9C Explained: Turnover Limit, Due Date, Statement Format & How to Prepare It in Tally Prime (2025 Update)  Will Income Tax Department release new ITR forms by January 2026? Finance Ministry says this  The Government of India has strengthened MSME protection through strict payment rules, ensuring that Micro & Small Enterprises receive timely payments from buyers. Under the MSME Development Act (MSMED Act), 2006, buyers must make payments within:  ITR Refund Delays in India: Why They Happen & How to FastTrack Your Refund in 2025  ITR Refund Delay: From Bank Errors To Department Checks, 5 Big Reasons Your Refund Gets Stuck  Income Tax Slabs 2025: New Vs Old Regime; Which One Is Better For You For FY2025-26?  Seamless Integration: How Tally Prime Connects Businesses to the Digital Economy  Govt to notify new ITR forms, Income Tax Act 2025 rules by January 2026: CBDT chief  Digital Efficiency for MSMEs: The Tally Prime Advantage  5 Ways Tally Prime Reduces Cost and Boosts Productivity for Startups «  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.