Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
ACIT vs. M/s Triace (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the CIT (A) decided the ground of reopening against the assessee but decided the ground of merits in favour of the assessee, the assessee is entitled, in an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, to urge, under Rule 27 of the I. T. Rules, that the CIT (A) was wrong in deciding the ground of reopening against the assessee.
Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) – The question whether expenditure is on capital or revenue account should be decided from the practical and business view point and in accordance with sound accountancy principles. The three tests applied to decide the nature of expenditure are the tests of enduring benefit, ownership test and the functional test.
Idea Cellular vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) – Where all the material facts were placed before the AO and he raised questions thereon, Explanation 1 to s. 147 has no application. Further, the argument that because there was no discussion in the assessment order, the AO had not applied his mind or expressed an opinion is not acceptable.
CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) – In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; (2) unless a new statute expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed that it deprives a person of an accrued right. On the ther hand, a law which is procedural in nature, and does not affect the rights, is retrospectively applicable;
Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) – (i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not loans or advances is irrelevant.
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rules 18, 20 and 22 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. 114/2007-Customs dated the 28th November, 2007, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R 735(E), dated the 28th November, 2007, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
No doubt, section 192 of the Income-tax Act requires the employer to deduct the income-tax from the salary and the salary is defined under section 17 of the Income-tax Act, which includes wages, any annuity or pension, any gratuity, any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages, any advance of salary and other payments
