Company Secretaries Examinations December, 2011 Result Would Be Declared On 25th February, 2012 At 11.00 A.M. The Results Alongwith Individual Candidate’s Subjectwise Break-Up Of Marks Will Be Available On The Institute’s Website.
In our considered view, therefore, on the facts of the present case wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA(2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
There has been a lot of emphasis in the orders of the authorities below, as indeed in learned Departmental Representative’s arguments before us, about the scope of assessee’s obligations to deduct tax at source under section 194J. However, having regard to the fact that we are in seisin of the limited question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), we see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. As far as this appeal is concerned, all these things issues regarding tax deduction at source obligations will be relevant only if one is to come to the conclusion that section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked in respect of the payments in question.
The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. 93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The assessee was required to submit month-wise details of sales and purchases according to which the total sales were reported at Rs. 3,22,81,924/- and purchases were reported at Rs. 3,04,17,709/-. Thus, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference of Rs. 6,96,447/- in the sales and Rs. 10, 86,596/- in the purchases.
India had signed the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters on 26th January, 2012. The Convention has been ratified by India by depositing the Instrument of Ratification as on 21st February, 2012. By this, India has become the first non-OECD, non-Council of Europe country to become a party to the Convention as amended by the 2010 Protocol
The provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 relating to regulation of combinations and the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combination) Regulation, 2011 (“Combination Regulations”) have been in force with effect from 1st June, 2011. The Competition Commission of India, after gaining experience of implementation of the Combination Regulations for almost nine months, has amended the Regulations with a view to provide relief to the corporate entities from making filings for combinations which are unlikely to raise adverse competition concerns, reduce their compliance requirements, make filings simpler and to move towards certainty in the application of the Act and the Regulations.
Explore the Roy Mitra vs. ACIT case (ITA No. 1703/2009) involving Sec. 194C, TDS, and contractual disputes. Key rulings and implications revealed.
To file a petition u/s 397, 398 of the Act, one has to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under the above provision of law. Unless and until the above criterion is fulfilled, the petition is not maintainable. The persons who can qualify to file the petition are (i) in case the company is having a share capital, not less than 100 members; or (ii) not less than 1/10th of the total number of its members, whichever is less.
Since the appellant is not providing output services as categorized in Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, debiting the said amount in the Cenvat account needs to be rectified by directing the appellant to debit or pay the entire amount invoked in both the appeals as service tax paid for receipt GTA services through PLA or by TR-6 challan.
Assessee is thus entitled to claim deduction both under Sec.36(1)(vii) and Sec.36(1)(viia) of the Act. The only limitation is that the amount of deduction shall not exceed the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account. In the present case there is no dispute that provisions of Sec.36(1)(viia) applies to the Assessee and also the fact the amount of deduction relating to bad debts written off is limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account.
