I.  Today's Headlines:   

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.  DSL Enterprises Private Limited Vs. ITO, WP No. 1473 of 2013, Date of order: 21.02.2013, Bombay High Court

Issue: Whether the interest accrued on fixed deposits in a bank would be entitled for TDS in the hands of the assessee, even if entitlement in respect of the principal amount of fixed deposit as well as the interest earned is subject matter of appeal?

Held :

it would be wholly unreasonable to deduct tax at source on an amount which has not accrued to the Petitioner as income during the financial year in question, the entitlement of the Petitioner being contingent on the outcome of the challenge to the arbitral award.

Moreover, it has also not been disputed on behalf of the Petitioner and it is fairly conceded by Counsel for the Petitioner that if the challenge to the arbitral award ends in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue would be entitled to bring to tax the amount accrued in the corresponding year. We accordingly make the rule absolute by directing the First Respondent to issue a certificate under Section 197 for financial year 2012-13. 

(Please click here for judgment)

2.   DIT, International taxation Vs. M/s Enron Global Exploration & Production Ltd., ITA No. 18 of 2009, Date of order: 19.06.2013, Uttarakhand High Court

Issue:

Whether the assessee company incorporated in USA and no PE in india is subject to taxability in case services are rendered on cost to cast basis to a Indian company, when DTAA between USA and India is present?

Held :

It is also not disputed that the PSC entered between the EOGIL and India Company was approved by the Parliament, as required under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also, there is little evidence on record, to show that the assessee company worked for more than ninety days during the relevant year in India. That being so, it cannot be said that the assessee company had its permanent establishment (for short P.E.) in India. since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, during the relevant year as such, it was not liable to pay the tax under DTAA, in India.

(Please click here for judgment)

III. Useful Article:

[ Contribution by CA Bimal Jain and contributor is available at bimaljain@hotmail.com ]

Cenvat credit cannot be denied on inputs used in a process not considered as manufacture 

(Please click here)  

IV.  Tenders Info.:

1. Quotation for Audit of  ITPO ECPF Trust
   India Trade Promotion Organisation
   New Delhi
   (Click for detail)

2. CA Firm for Internal Audit for F.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13
   Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
   Mumbai
   (Click for detail)   

 Golden Rules:

"Happy are those who dream dreams and
are ready to pay the price to make them come true" 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA