News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« From the Courts »
 Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Abdullah Siddique S/o Shri Abdul Allam, Mohalla-Sheikh Zadgan, sahkari Krishi Yantra, Sarahanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO Ward- 1 Saharanpur
 Yum ! Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd, 2nd Floor, Tower D, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon Vs. ITO, Ward-18(4), New Delhi
 Sunita Devi P-240, Sector-12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Vs. ITO Ward- 2(3) Ghaziabad PAN
 PCIT vs. State Bank Of India (Bombay High Court)
 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola (Supreme Court)
 Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
 Ranji Dhawan C-728, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle – 28 (1) New Delhi
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 002. vs M/s. Mannat Motors (India), 22, Dudial Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 088.
 Bhatia Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., 2919, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. PIN – 110 005. vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4 (4), New Delhi.
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(3), Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 002. vs. M/s. Mannat Motors (India), 22, Dudial Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 088.

General Electric Co vs. DDIT (Delhi High Court)
September, 23rd 2011

The whole of the share capital of Genpact India, an Indian company, was held by a Mauritius company. The whole of the share capital of the Mauritius company was in turn held by General Electric Co, USA. The Mauritius company gifted the shares of Genpact India to another Mauritius company, whose shares were then ultimately sold to a Luxembourg company. The AO claimed that the transaction of transfer of shares of Genpact India had resulted in capital gains to General Electric, USA, and so he issued a notice u/s 163 proposing to treat Genpact India as an agent of General Electric and to assess it as a representative assessee. This was challenged by a Writ Petition. HELD upholding the challenge:

The mere fact that a person is an agent or is to be treated as an agent u/s 163 and is assessable as representative assessee does not automatically mean that he is liable to pay taxes on behalf of the non-resident. U/s 161, a representative assessee is liable only as regards the income in respect of which he is a representative assessee. This means that there must be some connection or concern between the representative assessee and the income. On facts, even assuming that Genpact India was the agent and so representative assessee of General Electric, there was no connection between Genpact India and the capital gains alleged to have arisen to General Electric (from the sale of shares of Genpact India). Consequently, the s. 163 proceedings seeking to assess Genpact India for the capital gains of General Electric were without jurisdiction.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions