Delhi HC suspends demand
notice issued by DGFT officers seeking recovery of sanctioned SFIS benefits
under relevant FTP during the period 2003 to 2014; Demand had been raised
pursuant to Bombay HC ruling in Shri. Naman Hotels wherein it was held that SFIS
benefits cannot be availed by companies rendering services under foreign brand;
Court notes petitioner’s reliance on judgment in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd
which had followed Gujarat HC decision in Alstom India Ltd; Petitioner has
challenged vires of Rule 7(3) of Foreign Trade (Development &
Regulation) Rules, Para 7(10) of FTP, constitution of Policy Interpretation
Committee (PIC) for the period prior to 2012, while pleading that concerned
DGFT officers have no jurisdiction to issue such demand notice in contravention
of Section 16 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act; HC issues
notice to Revenue, and lists the matter for hearing on April 9, 2018 :
Delhi HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bombay High Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Eligibility for Venture Capital Funds
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI is entitled to claim ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment