Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
News from unconfirmed sources said that CBEC is to issue in day or two a notification extending the due date for filing of ST-3 return from 25.10.2011 to 26.12.2011 to enable assessees to comply with new system of online filing.
Trade Discount : In the case of S.D. Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 948/Coch/2008, A.Y. 2005-06, dt. 5-5- 2009. It was held that trade discount are not in the nature of commission and hence no TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194H of the act. This was again confirmed in the case of Add CIT v Pearl Bottling (P) Limited.
ITO, Bharuch Vs The Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It is pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the entire payment made to the farmers amounting to Rs.2,57,62,253/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of he IT Act. Apart from this, the AO disallowed Rs. 51,47,250/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.51,47,250/- was made twice i.e. once under Section 40A(3) and then invoking section 40(a(ia).
Come Diwali days and in India, we are once again in the festive season and celebration mood and mode but with a caveat. This time the festive season comes in the backdrop of continuous economic gloom, higher interest rates (bigger EMI’s) and unabated inflation not only in India but world over. However, that should not deter the festive celebrations. Despite this, we must celebrate, spend and invest, but of course, smartly and intelligently.
Growth Avenues Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax – Penalty u/s 271D can be levied against a person who takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS. Sine in this case there is no such violation on the part of assessee company the penalty cannot be levied against it. If at all there is any violation of the provisions of Section 269SS, it was on the part of Shri Rakesh Doshi and Viren Shah as is clear from the cross-examination of Shri KKS.
CIT v. M/s State Urban Development Society (P&H High Court ) – It has been held that reflection in the profit and loss account towards the income is not determinative. The entries in the books of account do not decide the nature of receipts. Since, the grants have been received by the assessee for disbursement and keeping in view the fact that the same cannot be utilized for any other purpose such as distribution for the poverty in furtherance to the object of the Schemes, it cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
ITO Vs Rajesh Kr Garg (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the claim of the asse see is that at the time of paying the interest to the 34 persons mentioned in the assessment order, he had before him the appropriate declarations in the prescribed form from the payees stating that no tax was payable by them in respect of their total income and therefore tax need not be deducted from interest under section 194A, and in the light of these declarations he had no option but to make the payment of interest without any tax deduction.
Notification No. 770/2011 – Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 (5 of 1873), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Rules, 2004, namely
The following achievements are noteworthy: a) Huge network of amended DTAA (81) and TIEA with tax havens (4) has been created. b) Specific requests in 333 cases (220 by Foreign Tax Division of CBDT and 113 by FIU) have been made by Indian authorities for obtaining information from foreign jurisdictions. c) Over 9900 pieces of Information obtained (9743 information by Foreign Tax Division of CBDT and 177 information by FIU) regarding suspicious transactions by Indian citizens from several countries have been obtained which are now under different stages of processing and investigation.
DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s NTPC- SAIL Power Supply Co Ltd – Whether after insertion of proviso to section 36(1)(iii), the interest paid on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession for any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use, is rightly not allowed as deduction and the interest income earned on FDRs made from surplus fund and interest earned on margins and advances made for expansion work is rightly assessed under the head `income from other sources’
