Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
a. The Bill has 470 clauses and 7 schedules as against 658 Sections and 15 schedules in the existing Companies Act, 1956. b. The entire bill has been divided into 29 chapters. c. Following chapters have been introduced, viz. * Registered Valuers (ch.17); * Government companies (ch. 23); * Companies to furnish information or statistics (ch. 25); * Nidhis (ch. 26); * National Company Law Tribunal & Appellate Tribunal (ch. 2
ITAT held that the payment received for supplying the ‘Repair Technical Documents’ are treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act). The Tribunal further observed that the technical materials supplied by the taxpayer would not lose the characteristics of ‘Service’, simply because they were supplied in the form of bound manuals, more particularly when it is tailor made for the specific requirements of a person.
The Standing Committee constituted by the Authority by its order dated 25.08.2010 will receive the applications for the grant of ATI licenses and screening shall be done according to the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Authority. The Committee shall make necessary recommendations to Sr. JD (Intermediaries) who shall according to the recommendations of the Committee grant license or renew the licenses of ATI. The verification regarding the suitability, carrying out due diligence shall be the responsibility of the Committee and there shall not be any further examination after the Committee makes it recommendations.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal is a fact finding authority and should have adjudicated the matter on merits. We are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue is not at all substantial and the amount in dispute is quite insignificant, considering that the case is one of a block assessment. There is no justification for the Income Tax Department to go on burdening the Tribunal, the Court with every case right up to the end. Apart from burdening the Tribunal and Courts, it also causes avoidable expenses to the Assessee. It is common knowledge that the Assessee has to pay for legal fees and merely because the Income Tax Department has got unlimited resources, there is no justification that every case should be dragged on. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal because of the insignificant amount involved in the matter. No substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Held by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Bhambri
