CCE, Trichy Vs. SBI, Kumbakonam (CESTAT Chennani) – The fourth proviso to the said Section 78 provides that the reduced penalty of 25% is available if the same is paid within 30 days of the Commissioner (Appeals) but this proviso applies in the case where the Commissioner (Appeals) enhances the penalty and not where he reduces the penalty. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty and hence the respondents cannot take advantage to the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78.
Dy. CIT Vs. Ms/. Shah Builders & Developers,- Uto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as “housing project” or ‘residential plus commercial’. Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% ofthe total built-up area ofthe plot; cl (d) inserted in s. 80-/B(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 is prospective and not retrospective.
A BILL to provide access to financial services for the rural and urban poor and certain disadvantaged sections of the people by promoting the growth and development of micro finance institutions as extended arms of the banks and financial institutions and for the regulation of micro finance institutions and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation v DIT (ITAT Chennai)- The principle that the institutions run by the charitable societies may collect fees and service charges does not mean that the institutions can charge fees, etc, at commercial rates from all the people without giving any element of charity to needy people.
Delhi High Court judgment on Writ Petition No. 328, 340/2010 – Ravina and Associates vs CIT. Stay on recovery of tax demand. Key details here.
Land Development vs ITO: ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue’s appeal on deemed dividend, upholding CIT(A)’s order vacating demand for FY 2005-06 & 2007-08.
Just because of vouchers being doubted by the AO and not coming to correct conclusions on them, as he has resorted to only arbitrations in so far as he has presumed the rates of loading and unloading charges without bringing any material on record in support of them. The ld.AR has sufficiently clarified that fluctuation in cartage is always involved due to time factor, urgency of material, varying waiting time in process for labour which has to be necessarily paid accordingly. It is not the straight-jacket or fixed rate on which any freight or cartage is to be paid according to the assessee’s whims or the AO’s whims. It is determined by the market fluctuations and contingencies. Therefore, the AO was not justified when all the expenses were fully supported by vouchers and other relevant details and evidences. The addition has been worked purely on assumptions and presumptions and surmises. Therefore both on law and facts, the addition of Rs.8,87,257/- has no merits and stands deleted. ACIT, Faridabad Vs M/s Presco Mec Autocomp Pvt Ltd
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Delhi)- Whether proportionate deduction under section 80IA is permissible where major amount of profits is attributable to new setup and meagre amount is attributable to old set up in view of the amended provisions of of clause (iv)(c) of 80-IA and 80IA(4)(ii) – Whether quantum of deduction under section 80IA is directly proportional to the profits of the undertaking and hence it has nothing to do with investment made in plant and machinery – Case remanded.
When parties enter into two separate contracts, one for material and one for labour, the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale. In such a case, the provisions of section 194C would apply only to the labour contract and not to the materials contract. The supply portion of the contract being for supply of equipment does not require deduction of tax at source. -Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Notification No. 34/2011- Income Tax – In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (6C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby specifies that any income arising to M/s. Rolls Royce Defense Services Inc., with principal place of business at 2001, South Tibbs Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206, USA for maintenance of aero engines (IAE 3007 AIE Engines) fitted in Embraer Aircraft, by way of royalty or fees for technical services received in pursuance of the agreement vide Contract No. Air HQ/8836/RR/Eng B between M/s. Rolls Royce Defence Services Inc. and Ministry of Defence signed on the 12th December, 2005 to an extent of Rs. 35.43 crores shall not be included in computing the total income of said company under the said Act.
