Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
In order to guard against possible leakage of names figuring in the secret bank accounts lists it has received from foreign shores, the CBDT has ordered the I-T department to obtain a signed undertaking from any government entity or department who demands the data for their own probe.
CCE Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court)- This Court has already held in the aforementioned decision that effect of making the registration certificate applicable from retrospective date under the trade mark law is based on the principle of deemed equivalence to public user of such mark whereas such deeming fiction cannot be extended to the excise law and that the same is only confined to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the assignment of the trade mark in question granted in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998.
DCIT Vs. Diamond ‘R’ US (ITAT Mumbai) – Exchange loss on refund of advances received from the customers is concerned, the same indeed constitutes admissible deduction irrespective of whether or not the amount so received were diverted to use by partners. It is so for the elementary reason that the proximate cost of loss having been incurred is receipt of advances from the customers and refunding the same-an exercise which is clearly in the course of normal business operations.
The Convocation for the newly enrolled Members admitted during the period April, 2011 to August, 2011 will be held as per schedule given below with a view to inculcate a sense of belongingness and attachment with the Institute.
In all other matters, the concerned DC, SEZ should take all necessary steps, including consultation with Government Counsel and represent the matter before the relevant Court on behalf of UoI also.
In respect of 2 % interest subvention, banks are required to submit their claims on a half-yearly basis as at September 30, 2011 and March 31, 2012, of which, the latter needs to be accompanied by a Statutory Auditor’s certificate certifying the claims for subvention for the entire year ended March 31, 2012 as true and correct. Any remaining claim pertaining to the disbursements made during the year 2011-12 and not included in the claim for March 31, 2012, may be consolidated separately and marked as an ‘Additional Claim’ and submitted latest by April 30, 2013, duly audited by Statutory Auditors certifying the correctness.
The Direct tax Code Bill 2011 (DTC), has given relief to the property owners on two major account, firstly, no deemed taxation for House Property and secondly, deduction for interest for self occupied house property.’ While, the concept of deemed taxation of more than one house property has been done away with and their expectation of a simple mechanism of taxation of rental income has also been considered to a great extent.
There are two components in every works contract one is material component and other is labour component. Material incorporated in a works contract is considered as deemed sales to the contractee and hence is liable to VAT or sales tax. To arrive at the material component involved in a works contract deductions for labour component […]
Delhi High Court held that sec. 220(2) provides for levy of interest if the demand is not paid within 30 days of the service of notice u/s 156. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the assessee pays up the entire demand raised pursuant to the assessment order within the period specified in sec. 156, wins in appeal and the amount is refunded and subsequently loses in further appeal and has to re¬pay the taxes. In such a case, as the assessee is not in default in the first instance, no interest u/s 220(2) is payable for the period when the favourable verdict of the appellate authority was operative.
