Simply because some incidental activity of the assessee is revenue generating, does not provide any justification to hold that it is tainted with “commerciality” and reaches a point where relationship of mutuality ends and that of trading begins.
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
The application of 15 per cent rate of tax on the amount shown in the return of income would not fall under the category of determination of tax payable on the returned income on the basis of return of income under section 143(1) when the assessee had categorically stated in the note enclosed with the return of income that the returned income was not in the nature of `royalty’
word `property’ has been used by the legislature in a wider sense so as to include more than one house. However, the right to compute the ALV at nil in respect of self occupied property is restricted to one house even thought he property owned by the assessee may consist of more than one house.
Speculative transaction is a transaction in which contract for purchase and sale of any commodity is settled otherwise than by actual delivery. It is not in dispute that in the case of transaction in derivatives, the transaction is always settled otherwise than by actual delivery.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued a code of conduct for intermediaries, including distributors, of mutual funds. Asset management companies have been told not to deal with non-compliant intermediaries. They are to report such cases to the Association of Mutual Funds in India (Amfi) and Sebi.
Insertion of Rule 13E in the I.T.A.T. (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, vide Notification No. GSR 389E dated 3-6-2009 prohibiting Retired ITAT President, Vice-President and members to appear before ITAT. No doubt the Ministry, as it were, built a nice palace so that all of us in the ITAT could lead a happy and blissful life hereafter
The assessee made payments to a foreign company for purchase of ‘shrink-wrapped’/ready-made software without deduction of tax at source u/s 195 (1). The AO held that the payments were chargeable to tax in the hands of the foreign company as “royalty” u/s 9 (1) (vi) and that the assessee was liable u/s 201 for non-deduction of tax and interest thereon.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 75/2006- Customs, dated the 19th July, 2006, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 430(E), dated the 19th July, 2006, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
The principal notification No. 154/1994-Customs, dated the 13th July, 1994, was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 583(E), dated the 13th July, 1994, and was last amended by notification No. 62/2008-Customs, dated the 6th May, 2008, that was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 338(E), dated the 6th May, 2008.
