the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the second reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated and thereby quashing the reassessment proceedings-the proceedings initiated by the AO for the second time under Section 147 is barred by limitation-even the proviso to Section 147 does not come into play on the facts of the case-AIT-2010-373-HC Even if the goods belong to same entry, manufacture does take place if new identifiable/marketable goods known in market emerge due to operation conducted-the process of ironing applied to the stiched brassieres prior to their packing was a process incidental to the completion of the brassieres as a manufactured product-process of purification and filtration being incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of a marketable product, the Respondent was entitled to Modvat credit on the inputs involved-AIT-2010-370-HC Larger Bench of CESTAT rules the Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay in filing the appeal including the one filed under section 35 E (4)-AIT-2010-372-CESTAT Corruption in IRS takes its toll-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Dhananjay Kumar arrested by CBI in Mumbai-Joint Commissioner of Customs & Excise Hemant Kothikar also arrested by CBI FM directs expediting of Cadre Restructuring in CBDT & CBEC Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3924-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 78 Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi to be Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre originating in, or exported from Japan and Belarus-Customs Tariff Notification No.85 Prescribing SION for new product “Propylene” under Chemical & Allied Products Group-DGFT PN 7 Inclusion of Finished Leather in the Focus Product Scheme of FTP-DGFT PN 6 Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 47.25 per US Dollar and Rs 60.35 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 46.30 per US Dollar and Rs 58.70 per EURO-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 77-Click on Exchange Rate for details Anti Dumping Duty under the Notification No.15/2007 is not applicable to Spandex Yarn (Elastomeric yarn)-Customs Circular No.30 Import of goods under Notification No.13/2010 for Commonwealth Games, 2010-Customs Circular No.31 Larger Bench of CESTAT rules charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars to be included in the assessable value of cars for payment of excise duty-AIT-2010-366-CESTAT merely because there was non accounting of goods, penalty was technical and inference of clandestine removal was not called for-AIT-2010-365-HC ITAT rules provision for doubtful debts and provision for standard debts are to be taken into consideration for computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act-AIT-2010-361-ITAT HC rules slitting of aluminum foils into customized width, mounting the same on the printing machine and thereafter printing the necessary text thereon is covered for 80IB benefit as it falls within the ambit of the term “produce”-AIT-2010-363-HC Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from China-Customs Tariff Notification No. 82 Special Bench of ITAT Ruling-where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract-AIT-2010-355-ITAT-SB

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Company’s Name cannot be substituted under Rule 20:Advance Ruling

AIT News Network

New Delhi. Authority for Advance Rulings(Income Tax) while a recent ruling has dismissed the Petition of M/s Gameplan Sports Private Limited as misconceived .The applicant had asked for amendment in name of the company mentioned in the Application under Rule 20 of the Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules , 1996.

The Facts: The applicant is an Indian company engaged in the business of management of sport events. On the assertion that it entered into an agreement with M/s Taj Television Ltd. PO Box 502018, Dubai Media City, Dubai , UAE on 10.05.2005 it sought advance ruling of the Authority on the following question :-

i. What is the nature of the contracted payment to be made Taj Television Ltd. (i.e whether this is royalty or business income in the hands of the recipient)?

ii. Whether the payment to be made to Taj Television Ltd. for purchase of advertising rights is taxable in India under the provisions of income tax Act, 1961 ?

iii. Whether resort can be taken to the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UAE for determining taxability of the said payment ? if so , what is the article applicable for determining taxability of the said payment?

iv. Whether tax is required to be deducted at source before making the said payment?

During the course of hearing of the application on 23.11.2005 it became necessary to call for a copy of the UAE tax Decree and the certificate of incorporation of M/s Taj Television Ltd. in Dubai. At that stage the applicant come forward with the petition under rule 20 of the Authority for Advance Ruling (Procedure) Rules , 1996 for amendment of records.

It was stated in the application, inter alia that the Registered office of the Taj Television Ltd is at Mauritius and it is a resident of Mauritius.

On these facts the petitioner sought amendment of the application by substituting TAJ TELEVISION LTD Dubai with Taj TV Ltd. , Mauritius.

The Ruling: The petition under Rule 20 of the rules is misconceived .Rule 20 of the Rules read as follows:-

Rule 20 – Amendment of the Record

If at any stage of the proceedings before the Authority it appears that there is any factual of material error in the records the same shall be amended after hearing the applicant and the Commissioner.

A perusal of the Rule 20 of the Rules shows that what is permitted to be amended by way of amendment of records is any factual material error and such a amendment can be made at any stage of proceedings before the Authority. The real question, therefore, is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case can the rule be invoked to substitute one company for another company by way amendment of record.

From the above narration of facts, it appears to us that M/s Taj Television Ltd. Dubai and M/s Taj TV Ltd. Mauritius are two different companies. In the absence of any material or record we are also unable to accept that the Dubai Company is only a branch of Mauritius Company. The description given in the agreement, in respect of which advance ruling is sought in the application and other papers filed along with the application, the name of Dubai Company appears. Even if the name of Mauritius Company is permitted to be substituted in the application, the said company's tax liability cannot be determined as in the agreement the name of Dubai Company is entered. For these reasons, we dismiss the application filed under Rule 20 of the Rules by the applicant.

( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-95-AAR )