Follow Us:

Archive: 26 December 2010

Posts in 26 December 2010

S. 263 If two views possible CIT have to agree with AO’s even if there is a loss of revenue

December 26, 2010 1294 Views 0 comment Print

These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under

Dividend stripping – In cases arising before 1-4-2002, losses pertaining to exempted income cannot be disallowed on ground that same are artificial

December 26, 2010 567 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage. During the financial year 1999- 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40% could be earned if investments

Tax borne by employer on perquisites of employees would constitute non-monetary benefit and is exempt u/s 10(10CC)

December 26, 2010 1748 Views 0 comment Print

At the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR that the first common ground raised by the assessees in the present appeals relating to exemption u/s 10(10CC) is covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of RBF Rig Corpn. LLC (RBFRC) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax – 109 ITD 141 wherein it was concluded that payment of taxes by the employer, on behalf of the employee, is a perquisite within the meaning of clause (2) of section 17 of the Income

Photography Service- Service tax payable on amount charged for providing such service, which would include value of all materials or goods used/consumed for providing such taxable service

December 26, 2010 570 Views 0 comment Print

Section 67 of the Finance Act, providing for levy of service tax on the gross amount charged by the service provider for the service provided plus/minus the inclusions/exclusions as mentioned in Explanation 1 to this section, satisfy the test for correctness of the measure prescribed by Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International

Sanction of agreement- Rule 78 of Company Court Rules does not require names of all joint holders of shares to be mentioned

December 26, 2010 706 Views 0 comment Print

The Petitioner seeks an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between itself and four transferor companies Cairn Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (CEIPL), Cairn Energy India West B.V., (CE India West), Cairn Energy Cambay B.V. (CE Cambay) and Cairn Energy Gujarat B.V. (CE Gujarat).

Requirement of furnishing tax audit report under section 44AB was introduced only with effect from 1-7-1995 for purpose of section 271B

December 26, 2010 1082 Views 0 comment Print

The petitioner filed his return of income for assessment years 1990-91 to 1993-94 together with audit reports under Section 44AB, on 19 November 1993, 23 July 1993 and 30 December 1993. The position as it emerges from the record of this proceeding is that the petitioner had obtained the tax audit reports under Section 44AB before the specified date.

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930