If the remuneration demanded by the person proposed to be appointed as Special Auditor is not acceptable to the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, he may not assign the work to him; but, it would be difficult to accept that the special audit can be assigned to a person without fixing either the remuneration or the norms on which the remuneration is to be calculated after the work is completed and conveying the same to him.
If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c).
It would be entirely arbitrary for the Assessing Officer to reopen the entire assessment under Section 147 to rectify an error or mistake which can be rectified under Section 154; an arbitrary exercise of power is certainly not a consequence which Parliament contemplates.
Recording of reasons: Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with The court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever precise they may be.
The Explanation given by the CBEC vide its Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 cannot apply in the cases where the transaction value of the concerned goods is available on record; to ignore such value on the record and to take resort to the explanation given by the CBEC would virtually amount to defeat the mandate of Rule 3(4) which will result In giving overriding effect to the explanation of the CBEC over and above and contrary to the provisions in the statutory rule comprised under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Cenvat credit : Manufacturers are not debarred from availing benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1-3-2003 in relation to goods other than goods which are excluded from benefit of said notification while simultaneously seeking to avail benefit of Cenvat credit or Modvat credit in relation to such excluded goods provided they are cleared on payment of full duty
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN THE CASE OF: ACIT Vs. Hukum Chand Jain, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 18 and 20 to 22 of 2006, DECIDED ON August 10, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Though the issue raised in these connected appeals filed by the Revenue stands decided in favour of the assessees by […]
In what could be a breather to India Inc, the corporate affairs ministry is proposing diluting norms for rotation of auditors and audit firms for companies in the new Companies Bill. The bill will be taken up for consideration in Parliament in the ongoing Budget session.
The fact that a surplus may incidentally arise from the activities of the trust, after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities, would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(23C).
It was held that if technical services provided off-shore do not require any deduction of tax at source. In the . instant case, the services have been rendered off-shore though these are utilized in India and as per the; decision of the jurisdictional High Court, no TD5 was required to be made. It is true that through e-commerce, the services can be rendered in India without any geographical boundary but no facts have been put before us to establish that Sun Singapore provided such services in India When the income of the recipients not taxable in India then the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source. Hence, it is held that the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the IT Act.
