Recently, the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held in the case of Shri Anurag Chaudhary (AAR No. 839 of 2009) that an employee who has left India for the purpose of employment outside India would qualify as a non resident, if he was present in India for less than 182 days during a financial year (From 1st April to 31St March) . Further, it was held that the salary earned on account of employment outside India would not be taxable in India.
In 1992, the Government enacted the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (‘the Act’) to enable development and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating imports and enhancing exports from India.In order to address certain requirements like bringing in tighter export/ trade control in case of dual use goods and related technologies, ensure conformity with India’s commitments to WTO/ other international agreements and to safeguard the domestic industry, need was felt to amend the Act.
Section 43A, before its substitution by a new Section 43A vide Finance Act, 2002, was inserted by Finance Act, 1967 with effect from 1.4.1967, after the devaluation of the rupee on 6 June, 1966. It applied where as a result of change in the rate of exchange there was an increase or reduction in the liability of the assessee in terms of the Indian rupee to pay the price of any asset payable in foreign exchange or to repay moneys borrowed in foreign currency specifically for the purpose of acquiring an asset.
Section 291 of the Companies Act provides that subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorized to exercise and do. A company, though a legal entity, can act only through its Board of Directors. The settled position is that a Managing Director is prima facie in-charge of and responsible for the company’s business and affairs and can be prosecuted
ection 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 163 assess or re assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently
The only other argument advanced was in respect of the penalty and interest imposed in so far as assessment year 1987-88 is concerned relying on the judgment in the case of Rohitkumar. The returns were filed only after the seizure of the incriminating material. The issue of whether penalty or interest could be levied was in issue in proceedings for adjudication. In the instant case, the levy of penalty or interest including for the Assessment Year 1987-88 has not been challenged and has become final.
When the nature of transaction is such that the arm’s length price can be determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods and it need not to be determined by applying 2 or more methods, in such a situation even the price determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods will become the arithmetical mean price.
The omission of the AO to levy interest under section 234B(3) in the first reassessment completed under section 147 which could have been rectified under section 154, does not bar the AO from levying interest under the very same provision, when the assessment was again revised a second time under section 147.
Since the Stock Exchange membership card which is sold in auction is property covered by the description “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the I.T Act, it’s sale by stock Exchange amount to transfer” within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act.
Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited employers’ as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules, but before date of filing return.
