CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
Interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of capital assets “not put to use” in the concerned financial year is eligible for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court said that all that was required is that the capital borrowed must be for the purpose of business for which interest was also paid. A bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax department. The department had filed the appeal after the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat High Court had held that the assessee company M/s Core Health Limited was not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1) and (III) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In our view, once all the material was before the AO and he chose not to deal with the several contentions raised by the petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all material was placed by the petitioner before him.
Notification No. 26-Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Birla Research Institute for Applied Sciences, Nagda (M.P.) has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2001 in the category
Notification No. 25-Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Dalmia Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Rajgangpur, Orissa has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from
Notification No. 24-Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Bharatiya Sanskriti Darshan Trust, Pune has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), with effect from 1-4-2007 in the category of ‘other institution’, partly
n exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby specifies the following institution to be public financial institution and for that purpose makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India,
There is no need to specify the agencies whose certificates alone, issued at the port of loading, would be accepted. The number of such agencies should not be limited.
he Principal notification No. 45/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 26th June, 2001 was published vide G.S.R. 474(E), dated the 26th June, 2001 and was last amended vide notification No. 21/2007-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 19th April, 2007 [G.S.R. 300(E), dated the 19th April, 2007
Discover the legal nuances in the Supreme Court judgment (Civil Appeal 582/2008) involving M/s Anis Ahmad and Sons versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncover the intricacies of the case where the appellant, a Commission Agent, challenges the classification as a ‘Trader.’ The court emphasizes that no adverse inference should be drawn due to non-appearance of certain traders and affirms the appellant’s role as an ‘Arhatiya’ (Commission Agent). Explore the details of the case and the court’s decision dated 22/01/2008.
