We have heard both the parties. A forward contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller obligating the seller to deliver a specified asset of specified quality and quantity to the buyer on a specified date at a specified place and the buyer in turn Is obligated to pay the seller a pre-negotiated price in exchange of the delivery. In the Instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. In respect of export of readymade ga
The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the arg
It is official now. The country may miss the April 1, 2011 deadline for adopting a dual goods and services tax (GST) system. The Finance Minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, has now conceded that it may not be possible to introduce GST from April 1 next year. The main bottleneck in achieving this major tax reform is the absence of consensus between the Centre and the States on the required Constitutional Amendment for introduction of GST.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee asked on Wednesday commissioners of the income tax departmentand customs to focus on low growth in service tax, the high level of arrears and amounts locked in litigation and adjudication.
These seven appeals by different assessee are arising out of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Surat in appeal Nos. CAS-IV/100-106/ 2008-09 dated 12-10-2009. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle-7and ITO Ward-7(2) Surat vide their different orders dated 18-12-2008, 16-12-2008 &26-12-2008 respectively for the assessment year 2006-07.
The PCC students are advised to follow the study materials for IPCC (along with practice manuals) for the following subjects, since in these subjects, the PCC syllabus is the same as that of IPCC –
8. We find that there is no dispute about applicability of India Mauritius tax treaty on the facts of the present case, as also about the fundamental position that the provisions of the said treaty being beneficial to the assessee, the same will override the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the profits earned by the assessee from these contracts are business profits in nature and can only be brought to tax in India in the event of Mauritian company having been held to have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The question that we must, therefore, address ourselves to
