In the court of _____________
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
APPLICATION FOR EARLY HEARING OF THE CASE
I, _____________ son of Shri ____________ resident of _____________
District _________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1- That I have filed the above noted application today before this
Hon’ble court, the contents of which may be read as part and parcel of
this affidavit for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition.
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true to best of my knowledge and belief and nothing concealed therein.
Verified at _________ on _____________
- Please view the following web for legal documents to be prepared of all kinds.http://www.affidavitform.in/2010/04/application-for-early-hearing-of-case.html
C A Shah D J
USAAll content copyright @ Affidavitform.in. All Rights Reserved 2010. Powered by Blogger.
From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@...>
To: ALWAR CA GROUP <ALWAR_CHARTERED_ACCOUNTANTS@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: icai-circ_ meerut <email@example.com>; C A of Thane <ThaneCAs@yahoogroups.com>; C A Bhupendra Shah Mumbai <GlobalIndianCAsfirstname.lastname@example.org>; Jalgaon C A <jalgaoncas@...>; Jalgaon ICAI <jalgaon@...>; JAIPUR CA JAIPUR CA GROUP <email@example.com>; Jaipur CA <Jaipur_CA@...>; "vadodara_CA@..." <vadodara_CA@...>; "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>; C A Pune Groupd <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "cacscwaindia@..." <cacscwaindia@...>; cacscw india group <email@example.com>; "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>; "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>; Company Secretaries Yahoo.Groups <firstname.lastname@example.org>; CS_MYSORE GROUP <csmysore@...>; C A Dipak Jain <djain128@...>; "Lucknowca_reinvented@yahoogroups.com" <Lucknowca_reinvented@yahoogroups.com>; Company Secretary <company_secretary@...>; New Delhi CA forum <email@example.com>; Chartered Secretaries <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; sankaramoorthy sankaralingam <ssmarchana@...>; roshan daultani <roshan_daultani2000@...>; lawprofessional Moderator <email@example.com>; Finpros Furum <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "CANEWS@yahoogroups.com" <CANEWS@yahoogroups.com>; C A Krishanlal Bansal <klbansal@...>; CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@...>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; C A Madhusoodan Kakkad. <camnkakkad@...>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "anil.garg@..." <anil.garg@...>; "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Ranchi_Chartered_Accountants@yahoogroups.com" <Ranchi_Chartered_Accountants@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 1 September 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re ITAT Online
The assessee, a Korean company, entered (together with L&T) into a contract dated 28.2.2006 with ONGC for the “surveys, design, engineering, procurement, installation” etc of a project on turnkey basis. On 24.5.2006, the assessee opened a Project Office which constituted a ‘Permanent Establishment’. The assessee claimed, relying on Ishikawajima-Harima 288 ITR 408 (SC) & Hyundai Heavy Industries 291 ITR 482 (SC) that the revenue from “offshore supply” and “offshore services” was not assessable to tax in India as no part of it was attributable to the PE. The AO & DRP rejected the claim on the basis that (i) the assessee had actively participated in pre-bid meetings and the project office was in existence even at the stage of the “kick-off” meeting, (ii) the contract was a “works contract” and did not contemplate a “sale” of material, (ii) the assessee was responsible for transportation and insurance and title in the goods was to pass to ONGC only after the completion of the project and successful acceptance by ONGC in India, (iii) the contract, being “turnkey“, could not be split into one for supply of material and the other for installation & commissioning. 25% of the said offshore revenue was held assessable in India. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD:Regards,Editor,---------------------Latest:
CIT-DR vs. M/s. Simoni Gems (ITAT Mumbai) CIT-DR’s “false & frivolous” submissions constitute “criminal contempt” & justify recovery of costs from salaryNew: itatonline.org is now specially optimized for your Blackberry, Smart Phone & Tablet PC. So, stay updated even on the move