ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bajaj Auto Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- From the language of section 205 of the Act, it is clear that the bar operates as soon as it is established that the tax has been deducted at source and it is wholly irrelevant as to whether the tax deducted at source is paid to the credit of the Central Government of not and whether the TDS certificate in Form No. 16 has been issued or not. Also the mere fact that the employer may not issue the TDS certificate to the employee does not mean that the liability of the employer ceases. The liability to pay income-tax if deducted at source is upon the employer.
Asera Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- With respect to the disallowance of lease cancellation charges it is evident that this loss to the assessee was incurred due to appropriation of security deposit standing with the landlord in lieu of the loss of lease rent to the landlord. As far as the assessee is […]
Ahuja Platinum Properties Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The availability of interest free funds as given in the earlier part of this order is not in dispute. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on the assumption that the assessee did not establish the nexus between the interest free funds available with the assessee and interest free loans given to the sister concern. In this regard we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) had an occasion to examine the question with regard to disallowance of interest, where the assessee is in possession of both interest free funds as well as borrowed funds on which interest was paid by the assessee.
ACIT Vs M/s Aftek Infosys Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee’ s business is that of computer software services and products development. In order to supply software to its customers as per their requirements, the assessee has necessarily to incur certain expenses which go in making the product customised. When the sale proceeds are considered as revenue receipt, there is no reason for taking such expenses as not revenue because of the fact that there is no enduring benefit to the assessee by incurring such expenses.
CIT Vs. M/s Dehradun Club Ltd. (Uttarakhand HC)- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provision of charging interest under Section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act is mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & others 252 I.T.R. 1. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, but, at the same time, the assessment order must contain the imposition of interest and, only thereafter, a notice of demand could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Board has received references expressing difficulties in implementation of provisions of Section 194A of the Act in a situation where in the course of the proceedings before Supreme Court/High Court/ any other court or tribunal , one or more than one litigant (hereinafter ‘the depositor’) is directed by the court that a specified amount be deposited in the bank either directly or through the court in order to protect the interest of litigants.
Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) M C Joshi on Friday said on the sidelines of an Assocham function that it has not given direction for targeting anyone for political reasons and action against a member of team Anna would have come in normal manner. A specific case would have come up in normal manner …No direction, anything (has been ) given to anyone to treat any such case in a particular manner.
CIT Vs Savita N. Mandhana (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the assessee has already included entire consideration for sale of shares, including what could be attributed to non compete obligations, as capital gains. In this view of the matter, the exercise of bifurcation between consideration attributable to sale of shares and for non compete obligations is rendered academic and infructuous.
We advise that the name of Rabobank International (Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen – Boerenleenbank B.A.)” has been included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 by Notification DBOD.IBD.No.948/23.03.027/ 2011-12 dated July 18, 2011, published in the Gazette of India (Part III – Section 4) dated July 30, 2011.
Attention of Authorised Dealer Category – I (AD Category – I) banks is invited to the A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 17 dated November 16, 2010, in terms of which AD Category – I banks have been permitted to offer the facility of repatriation of export related remittances by entering into standing arrangements with Online Payment Gateway Service Providers (OPGSPs), subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
