Whether the vehicles hired by the assessee in execution of the transport contract can be termed as a Sub-contract and consequently the assessee is liable to deduct tax from the payment made for such vehicles u/s 194C (2) of the Act the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, as per the provisions of section 194C(2), on the payments made to the lorry owners for lorry hire. Consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) shall not apply to such payments.
Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/30/2008-DGAD, dated the 27th February, 2009, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1 dated the 27th February, 2009 , has initiated review in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
This office had issued above referred Trade Circulars explaining scope of section 6A of CST Act, 1956. In the Trade Circular dated 20th February 2007, a view had been taken that section 6A of CST Act, 1956 deals only with transactions between principal and agent and that it applies in those cases where the movement of goods is to the place of business of the dealer himself in another state or to his agent or his principal in another state. It was viewed that section 6A does not deal with transactions which are on a principal to principal basis.
and 15.4.2008-reg I am directed to invite your attention to the above-mentioned subject and to say that, a reference was received from the Ministry of Agriculture Food & Public Distribution to consider extension of export obligation period for those Advance License Holders who had imported raw sugar between 21.9.2004 and 15.4.2008 but had not yet fulfilled their export obligations.
Assessees who fulfill all the conditions are entitled to registration cannot be faulted. The contention of the Revenue that the assessees are not registered as an institution and hence not entitled for registration is also without any merit, because, there is no requirement under the Act that an institution
We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record in the light of precedents relied upon. The factual position has been elaborately noted in the foregoing paragraphs. To sum-up the facts, it is noted that Shri Kulwant Singh Kohli was the original owner of the three shops which
After passing of order by Settlement Commission, no power vests in Assessing Authority or any other authority to issue notice in r/o period and income covered under order of Settlement Commission.
Unfortunately, for the appellant NBFCs. are not covered by Section 36(l)(viia) of the I.T Act and so much so, explanation to section 36(l)(vii) squarely applies or in other words, the appellant-N. B.F.Cs. are not entitled to deduction of any Provision created for bad and doubtful debts, no matter such provision
It shows that these assessees had really intended to comply with the notices and therefore it should not be inferred that there was a default which could invite penalty u/s 271(l)(b). The ITAT Delhi Bench-G in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (2008) 115 TTJ (Delhi) 419
We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Copies of Registration Certificate under Kerala Value Added Tax and Form ST-2 under Service Tax Act placed at pages 20 and 21 clearly mentions that assessee has been registered as a works contractor doing construction of residential complex
