Month: February 2011

Archive for February, 2011


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

U/s 80-IA (8), the transfer of goods from an eligible business to a non-eligible business is required to be taken at “market value”. The tariff determined by MERC is based on the concepts of ‘clear profits’ and ‘reasonable return’ and does not reflect the “market value” of the electricity. While the ‘clear profits’ are determined by considering the streams of income, the ‘reasonable return’ is determined on the capital base. If the ‘clear profits’ are more than the ‘reasonable return’, the excess is considered while fixing tariffs for the subsequent year and the exercise of adjusting the gap between the reasonable return and clear profits is an on-going process. The tariff is either increased or reduced to adjust the gap between the two. Further, the tariff is fixed for both activities of generation and distribution of power and may not reflect the true rates with regard to only the activity of generation

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

No income accrues u/s 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) from use of satellite outside India to beam TV signals to India even if bulk of revenue arises due to viewers in India

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 1, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

CBDT Circular No.12 dated 23.8.2001 which provides that “the AO shall not make any adjustment to the arm’s length price determined by the taxpayer if such price is unto 5% less or unto 5% more than the price determined by the AO” was in the context of the proviso to s. 92C (2) inserted by FA 2001 w.e.f. AY 2002-03. Though the proviso provided for only arithmetical mean of the prices to be taken and did not provide for any concession, the Circular was issued considering practical difficulties. The said Proviso was amended by FA 2002 w.e.f AY 2002-03. The effect is that the Proviso in the context of which Circular No. 12 was issued never came into operation and so the Circular No. 12 became otiose and cannot be relied upon