ACIT vs Mahalaxmi Chemical Works The notice under s.148 was issued for the reason that interest paid was not allowable since funds taken on interest were not used for business purpose.During reassessment said interest was not disallowed, accepting the assessee’s explanation. The reassessment for that reason could not be held to be invalid since there was prima facie reason to believe at the time of issue of notice under s.148 that income had escaped assessment.
The controversial double tax avoidance treaty between India and Mauritius is likely to survive despite pressure from the income-tax authorities. The pact may be reworked, but not scrapped, thanks to the lobbying by a high-level delegation headed by Mauritius Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam.
The Tribunal observed that the loss incurred by the assessee is on account of the loan advances to BFL from which the assessee company had earned interest. It was the surplus fund of the assessee which was utilized for advancing loan with the intention of earning interest, but assessee is not a money lender. It is common in the commercial practice that if surplus money is available then the business invests the same for earning interest instead of keeping it idle. The said investment would be capital in nature as surplus funds are invested with a view to earn interest. The assessee is also not a dealer in securities and investments. ‘ A So the loss sustained by the assessee in respect of the loan advanced to BFL is in the nature of capital loss and is not allowable u/s.28 of the Act also.
THE New Year has just set in, and things have started going awry for the CBDT. In fact the CBDT’s ‘time chakra’ had entered the adversarial zone some time late last year when the Delhi High Court had begun to take note of its frivolous appeals. It did warn the income tax authorities and also asked for detailed procedure and screening methodoligies adopted by the Board before an appeal is filed before the High Courts.
The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide Notification No.36/2001 – Customs (N.T.), dated, the 3rd August, 2001 (S.O.748 (E), dated, the 3rd August, 2001) and was last amended vide Notification No. 122/2007-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 17th December, 2007 (S.O.2137 (E) dated 17th December, 2007).
The risk containment and other measures applicable for existing exchange traded equity Index option contracts shall be extended suitably to long term option contracts on Index.
The assessment for AY 90-91 was reopened on the ground to verify whether the income from warehousing charges should be treated as income from business or income from house property. Ultimately after investigating the case in detail, the Assessing Officer himself arrived at a conclusion that charges on account of warehousing are business receipts and the reassessment was completed accordingly. Now, for these years under consideration the department had taken a different view, which in our considered opinion,
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Dayal Singh The officers of the bank completed all paper formalities, perhaps at the behest of the respondent or at least on the basis of his certificate for disbursement of the loan. The activity of the respondent in issuing such a vague certificate with the intention of persuading the bank to grant his client a loan amounted to `other misconduct’ within the meaning of the Act, read with the regulations framed thereunder.
The appellant exercises computer control over the computes installed at the premises of the subscribers. This amounts to a fixed place of business for carrying on the business of the enterprise in India . But for the supply of computers, the configuration of computes and connectivity which are provided by the appellant either directly or through its agent AIPL will amount to operating part if its CRS system through such subscribers in India and accordingly PE in the nature of a fixed place of business in India. Thus the appellant can be said to have established a PE within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of Indo-Spain Treaty.
The principal notification No.20/2006-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2006 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 92(E), dated the 1st March, 2006 and was last amended vide notification No.93/2007-Customs, dated the 8th August, 2007 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 539 (E), dated the 8th August, 2007.
