In the case before us, the assessee was liable to pay labour charges to various parties and made the payment without deducting tax at source. However, at the end of the financial year, the assessee has made a provision for tax deductible at source and has remitted to the Government account before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the IT Act.
Under section 245D of the Act, once the application is admitted, the assessee is required to pay the additional demand on the basis of income disclosed in the application within 35 days of the order of the Commission u/s 245D(1) and in case the demand is not paid within the time allowed interest at prescribed rate is chargeable under 245D(2C). There is no material before us nor there is anything to suggest that in the order of the Settlement Commission that the assessee did not comply with aforesaid order u/s 245D(1) of the Act.
As you are already aware, as a part of green initiative, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its circular number 18/2011 dated 29.04.11 had clarified that a company would be in compliance of section 219(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in case a copy of balance sheet etc. is sent by electronic mail to members of the Companies.
J.R. Solvent Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Section 145 deals with method of accounting. However, under section 145(2) where the Income-tax Officer is not satisfied about the ‘correctness’ or ‘completeness’ of the accounts of the assessee or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee then the Income-tax Officer may make best judgment assessment as contemplated by section 144.
The existing restriction in exemption u/s. 54EC is clearly an attempt to prevent home owners from fully enjoying the benefits. The treatment of long-term capital gains (LTCG) has been a contentious issue in recent years. Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, exempts from taxation capital gains arising from transfer of a long term capital asset, provided the assessee invests the whole or part of the capital gains in long term specified assets for three years.
The Income Tax Department achieved another milestone in Tax Payers’ Services when SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE HON’BLE UNION FINANCE MINISTER inaugurated and dedicated the AAYAKAR SAMPARK KENDRA (Call Centre Services) to the Nation at Jangipur, Murshidabad, West Bengal on 14th April 2012.
Shareholders qualifying under section 399 of Companies Act, 1956 can approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 seeking preventive and remedial measures against the oppression and mis-management in the Company. Though, section 397/398 is meant to provide relief to the minority shareholders against the actions of the majority, even the majority can approach under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and at times, the majority may not be in actual control of the company or the majority becomes artificial minority.
The attached document is a draft circular containing details of proposed amendments to harmonize the ER-1, ER-3 and ST-3 returns so that a single common return can be prescribed instead of these three returns as measure of simplification of the Business Processes in respect of filing the Return by assesses. The draft is being placed in public domain for widest possible circulation and an extensive debate from all stakeholders in trade and industry as also from all the field formations of the department. All suggestions and feedback from Trade as well as Field formations, may please be emailed at dircx1@nic.in or at vp60singh@gmail.com latest by 15th May 2012. The feedback and suggestions received would be considered for revising the proposed amendments.
As per the notification, individuals having taxable income exceeding Rs. 10 lakh and, domestic and expatriate resident individuals with assets located overseas have to mandatorily file their returns through the electronic mode.
Assessee has produced valuation report at the time of purchase as well as sale. In Remand, Assessing Officer has not pointed out any lacunae in the same. Moreover, the cost of land so bifurcated was being already reflected in the books of accounts and no depreciation was claimed on that account. In the case of C.I.T. vs. D.C. Ramachandra Rao 236 ITR 51, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that it is possible to bifurcate the capital gain arising out of sell of land and building, even if, they are sold as one unit. Land is an independent and identifiable capital asset and it continues to remain so, even after construction of building thereon
