Follow Us :

Archive: 16 January 2013

Posts in 16 January 2013

S. 54F – If two flats were joined together before assessee became owner, the same will be considered as one

January 16, 2013 2168 Views 0 comment Print

Though the respondent-assessee had purchased flat Nos. 416A and 516A it was only purchase of one residential house. Further, the Tribunal held that two flats were joined together before the respondent assessee became the owner of the two flats. The Certificate from the society also established the fact that two flat Nos. 416A and 516A were joined together and were considered as one residential house.

Principal of principle of netting applies if sufficient nexus exist between interest received & paid

January 16, 2013 1919 Views 0 comment Print

The netting principle was adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). That was a case concerning Section 80HHC which provides for a deduction from export profits. Explanation (baa) provided for exclusion of certain income which had nothing to do with the export profit and one such item of income was interest.

Whether Service provider can claim reimbursement of service tax paid by him on services provided to service receiver

January 16, 2013 5892 Views 0 comment Print

Service tax is statutory liability. It is a tax which is required to be collected by the service provider from the person to whom service is provided, and thereafter to be deposited with government treasury within the prescribed time.

Penalty u/s 272B is prospective & applicable from 01.06.2006

January 16, 2013 8012 Views 0 comment Print

The provisions of Penalty levied u/s 272B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are prospective i.e. it is applicable from the date of insertion of sub-clause (iv) to section 139A(5B) of the Act i.e. 01.06.2006.

‘Pooja expenses’ in temple located inside factory premises is for business purpose & allowable

January 16, 2013 5743 Views 0 comment Print

Expenses were incurred on the maintenance and puja of the colony temple at Dalmiapuram, Salem and the Hospet works. It appears from para 6.1 of the order of the CIT (Appeals) that he visited the factory at Dalmiapuram to verify the fact that the temple was located inside the factory of the assessee company. He found that it was a small village where the factory was located and predominantly the local people were employed,

Phone Numbers of DIN Cell; and Help Desk w.e.f. 17.01.2013

January 16, 2013 1032 Views 0 comment Print

PHONE NUMBERS OF DIN CELL AND HELP DESK  Stakeholders are hereby informed  that operator for MCA21 project is changing w.e.f. 17.01.2013 from M/s. TCS Ltd to M/s. Infosys Ltd. Due to this the new contact numbers for DIN Cell and Help desk will be :

ITAT asked AO to determine if payment for software service is FTS or Royalty

January 16, 2013 2835 Views 0 comment Print

From a perusal of the order of assessment, we find that all the submissions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and his findings thereon are only in respect of whether the payment made by the assessee to the consultant M/s. IBM Corporation, USA was or was not taxable in India as royalty under Article 12(3) of the India-USA, DTAA or as Fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-USA, DTAA.

Delay in passing of review order by CCE cannot be condoned

January 16, 2013 1078 Views 0 comment Print

Apex Court in in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) of held that power under section 35E is a power of superintendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly and when a time limit is prescribed for exercise of this power,

Order passed cannot be recalled of reviewed on plea that advocate engaged by liquidator was lacking an authority to represent

January 16, 2013 573 Views 0 comment Print

In our view, we do not find any substance for the alleged ulterior motive or collusion by Mr. Desai with the OL, since no material is produced to show that any undue benefits was to be derived by the OL. Be it noted that the appeal is not preferred by the OL, but is preferred by the applicant herein in capacity as Party-in-person against the order of the learned Company Judge.

S. 148 Notice to every partner in the case of a firm is not necessary

January 16, 2013 3178 Views 0 comment Print

A notice in the case of a firm need not necessarily be issued to each and every one of its partners – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).

Search Post by Date
January 2013
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031