It was held by Honorable SC that merely because assessee, may be, by mistake, paid duty on goods which were exempted from such payment, did not mean that goods would become goods liable for duty under Act and it was Further held that merely because assessee had not claimed any refund on duty paid by him would not come in way of claiming benefit of Notification.
Withholding tax proceedings under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were barred by limitation, since it has been initiated beyond a reasonable period of four years. Further the Tribunal held that in the absence of period of limitation under Section 201 of the Act prior to an amendment2, a reasonable time period was to be read into it, which was within 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial Year
In this case, the issue which arose before the Honorable Delhi Tribunal was that whether income received by the assessee for provisioning of technical services in connection with prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oil would be taxable under section 9(1)(vii) read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act,1961(‘the IT Act’) or section 44BB of the IT Act.
The payments under the IT agreement were not in the nature of reimbursement as the preamble stated that the French company had the capacity and resources to provide and co-ordinate IT services. There was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the transaction was in the nature of reimbursement. For providing services under both, the wide area network as well as the messaging system, some hardware was to be utilised.
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (Supra), the issue before this Court was whether the products manufactured by the assessee would fall under Sub-Heading 3003.30 as medicament or under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. The assessee contended that each of the products was having ayurvedic medicinal herbs in it and even the labels on these products claim specifically the medicinal properties of the product. The assessee further urged that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is marketed as such.
The Income Tax Department has decided to bring its over two-lakh strong staff under biometric monitoring system to ensure strict adherence to working hours. In an ambitious project rolled out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), I-T’s administrative authority, the department has invited tenders for ‘purchase, installation and monitoring of biometric based attendance monitoring system’.
Unless there is a finding that assessee’s investment is not business activity and the funds are not utilized for the purpose of business, disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) does not arise. There is no disallowance under section 14A in this year as the dividend income was taxable. Therefore, the interest disallowance has to be considered under section 36(1)(iii). If there is income or loss under the head capital gains, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) pertaining to the investment activity is also to be considered as deduction, while working out the capital gain.
As per the Notification issued on 23rd February 2012 as required by section 30(3) of the Chartered Accountant Act 1949 it was decided that exemption from ‘Common Proficiency Test’ is given subject to certain condition… i) all graduate and post graduate with any of the three subject as mentioned in the notification having secured 55% of the total mark.
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Indisputably, the documents placed at sl. no. 3 on page no.15-20 of the paper book viz. affidavit of Ms. Anjana Vohra, her confirmation and PAN details were never considered by the AO, having been submitted before the AO after the conclusion of hearing on 23.12.2009. There is no sl. no.4 in the paper book; admittedly sl. nos. in the paper book having been wrongly numbered. Though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the relevant submissions of the assessee in the impugned order and these documents are stated to have been placed before him, he did not record his specific findings in the light of these documents and merely affirmed the order of the AO.
