Month: May 2004

AAR : The applicant, M/s Rockwool (India) Ltd. (RIL), a company resident in India and having its registered office at Hyderabad is engaged in the manufacturing of Resin Bonded Thermal Insulation Material since 1990.

Authority For Advance Rulings Rockwool (India) Ltd., In Re Sections 9(1)(v), 10(15), DTAA between India & Mauritius, Art. 11(4) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman; K.D. Singh & K.D. Gupta, Members AAR No. 600 of 2002 31st May, 2004 Counsel Appeared None, for the Applicant : None, for the CIT concerned Ruling K.D. Gupta, Member : …

AAR : On the facts and circumstances of the case stated in the statement of facts, whether the amount received from superannuation fund in 2002-03 is taxable in India in view of DTAA with USA ?

Authority For Advance Rulings Yogesh Prabhakar Modak, In Re Sections 10(13), 15, 90, DTAA between India and USA, art. 16(1) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman; K.D. Singh & K.D. Gupta, Members AAR No. 621 of 2003 31st May, 2004 Ruling K.D. Singh, member : The applicant is an individual who was working as an employee …

AAR : The application is not maintainable because the nonresident company has sought an advance ruling on the tax liability of the Indian company, which is not permissible under s. 245N of the Act.

Authority For Advance Rulings Connecteurs Cinch, S.A., In Re Section 245N(a) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman; K.D. Singh & K.D. Gupta, Members AAR No. 598 of 2002 31st May, 2004 Counsel Appeared Cherian K. Baby, for the Applicant : G.V. Gopala Rao, for the CIT concerned Ruling K.D. Singh, Member : The applicant M/s Connecteurs …

AAR : The applicant ‘Sopropha S.A.’ is a company incorporated in Switzerland and is assessed to income-tax in that country. It proposes to open a branch office in India for dealing in ‘green coffee’.

Authority For Advance Rulings Sopropha S.A., In Re Sections 43(5), proviso (a) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman; K.D. Singh & K.D. Gupta, Members AAR No. 508 of 2000 31st May, 2004 Counsel Appeared M.S. Syali, Satyen Sethi & Manu K. Giri, for the Applicant : S.M.J. Abidi, for the CIT concerned Ruling K.D. Gupta, Member …

Gauhati H.C : The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed before this court by the writ petitioners disputing the legality and validity of the search and seizure operations carried out, by the respondent authorities on different dates. The writ petitions pose common questions of law on identical facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

High Court Of Gauhati M.S. Associates & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 132(1), CPC 16, Art. 226 D. Biswas, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 137, 1552, 6965 & 7008 of 2000 & 2889, 2890, 3729, 8647 & 8648 of 2001 31st May, 2004 Counsel Appeared : S.S. Ray, K.N. Choudhury, Ms. P. Agarwal, S. …

Delhi H.C : The aforesaid trust submitted two applications in Form No. 10A for registration under s. 12A and recognition under s. 80G of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

High Court Of Delhi M.K. Nambyar Saarc Law Charitable Trust vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 11, 12A, 12AA, 80G B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. Writ Petn. No. 7689 of 2004 28th May, 2004 Counsel Appeared Parag Tripathi with Ms. Puja Jain & Jayant, for the Petitioner : Ms. Barkha Babbar, R.D. …
Malcare WordPress Security