Now a days, every assessee who is doing investment in shares are getting hitted hard by the impact of section 14A. The AO are adding back a huge sum on account of this, whereas the assessee had not earned so much from it. The article will provide you brief analysis of this section which will help to substantiate your views at the time of the the assessment or before the appellate authority.
Pneumech Engineers Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty to conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.
Service tax on transportation had a bad innings right from its first levy. It has gone through the ups and downs since it was levied for the first time on 16.11.1997. The levy was challenged and was withdrawn on 2.6.1998 just after few months. Though government did retrospective amendments twice in this category of service, yet the issue does not seem to be settled till date. The levy of service tax for the mid-period of 16.11.97 to 2.6.98 is still in limelight by one reason or another. Here is the anatomy of the issue that has been on fire since past so many years.
Supreme Court dismisses revenue appeal confirming ITAT stand on joint names issue. Allahabad High Court judgment explained. #IncomeTax #LegalNews
Notification No. 60/2011 – Income Tax Section 115JC which provided for special provisions for payment of “Alternate Minimum Tax” by certain Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP), was introduced by the Finance Act, 2011. As per section 115JC(3) every LLP to which section 115JC applies is required to obtain a report from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed. Accordingly, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, has through this notification, notified Income-tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 2011. The said Amendment Rules have inserted Rule 40BA after Rule 40B which provides that the report of an accountant which is required to be furnished by the assessee under section 115JC(3) shall be in Form 29C. Further, in Appendix II of the said rules, Form 29C has been inserted after Form 29B. These Rules will come into force on 1st April, 2012.
Guidelines for reporting TDS transactions where amount paid to deductee has not exceeded the threshold limit in the first quarter but in subsequent quarters has exceeded threshold limit (as issued by the Directorate of Income Tax – Systems). Flag “Y” should be selected in the field of ‘Reason for non deduction/ lower deduction/higher deduction/ threshold’ to highlight transactions where TDS is not deducted as the threshold for deducting tax has not exceeded. If threshold flag is provided then rate of deduction should be ‘0.0000’ and tax deducted/ deposited (deductee) amount should be ‘0.00’. Threshold flag is can be quoted only against the following section codes in corresponding challan details:
The Rs. 45 crore tax exemption given to the ICC on the revenue generated from this year’s cricket World Cup here was unjustified and devoid of merit, the Standing Committee on Finance has concluded in an inquiry.
Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)- HC held that reliance on the negative order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the tax department is not a valid ground for not staying the demand where issues are covered by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Further the same cannot be a ground for making adjustment of refund of earlier years under Section 245 of the Act.
C& C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Clause (a) of sub-Section (6) to Section 260A of the Act states that the High Court may decide an issue, which is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The word determined means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word determined presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. In a given case, a substantial question of law may arise because of the facts and findings recorded by the Tribunal, but the said issue/question is not determined. In such cases, an appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertained.
In partial modification of Para 1 of the Ministry’s Circular no. 57/2011 dated 28.07.2011, the last date for filing financial statements in XBRL mode without any additional fee due to delay by those Phase-I class of companies (excluding exempted class) whose Balance Sheet date for FY 2010-11 is on or after 31.03.2011, has been extended up to 31.12.2011 or within 60 days of their due date of filing, whichever is la
