HC held that When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, notional expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The dividend income was incidental to the business of sale of shares, which remained unsold by the assessee. It cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares had to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be a disallowance u/s 14A.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
Assessee has filed writ petition against order passed by the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), for denying them exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 196, on the ground that the aforesaid institute was not directly imparting education and had not employed teachers who were teaching or giving lectures to the students.
irst Petitioner does have serious issues to be urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in appeal. This is a case where the Assessing Officer while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 220(6) and the Director of Income Tax ought to have granted a complete stay of demand. The Assessee has highlighted the nature of its activities in several applications filed in support of the plea for stay and also explained its financial position. None of this has been taken into account while disposing of the application for stay.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raju Bhatra reported in (2009) 310 ITR 105 (SC) has laid down the ratio that surcharge leviable under the Finance Act was a distinct charge not dependent for its leviability on the assessee’s liability to pay incometax but on assessed tax. Therefore, even without the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to tax in the case of block assessment of search cases, the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to block assessment under Chapter XIV-B in relation to the search initiated on April6, 2000 and according surcharge was leviable.
It was held that till the decision in the case of ITC Ltd., all the decisions were in favour of the respondents and therefore invoking suppression or mis-declaration etc. for confirmation of demand is not in order. Further, I also take note of the submission made by the ld. Counsel that even the original adjudicating authority has taken a view that the failure on the part of the assessee is acceptable as a bona fide error and cannot be attributed to be wilful intention to evade tax. In view of the above discussion, appeal fails on the ground of limitation alone and I am not going into merits since appeal can be rejected only on this ground. Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection filed by the respondent get disposed of.
AAR held that a consortium formed by the Applicant with another non-resident, to bid for a turnkey contract, is liable to be taxed as Association of Persons (AOP) according to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (tax treaty) between India and Germany. The AAR also held that an internal division of responsibility between consortium members does not alter the formation of an AOP and indivisible nature of the contract.
The case of respondent no. 1 is that all correspondence / dealing by the petitioner with the Complainant Board in this regard have been with the Northern Regional office at New Delhi, within territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The petitioner did not make application for registration with SEBI as required under statutory obligation to wind up the schemes and repay the investors as prescribed Under Section 73 of SEBI (CIS) Regulations 1999. As per the said Regulation, petitioner was required to file report with SEBI on prescribed format. He did not do so. The statutory report (Winding up and Repayment Report) has also not been filed till date. The cause of action therefore, accrued in Delhi. The petitioner also had its Office at Delhi at B-30, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. More so, the communication received on the letter head of the company thereby disclosing the office of accused company is on record, at Delhi.
1. The biggest wonder in the world is that a human being who normally spends 80 – 100 years on the planet earth, (i) does not ever think that he / she is not the body and his real self is the Atma or Spirit within, and (ii) he never deliberates upon the purpose of the life on this planet earth.
1. It calculates Tax Liability of Salaried Employees of Private and Government Sector for A.Y. 2013-14 or Financial Year 2012-13. 2. Calculator have in Built House Rent Allowance (HRA) Calculator which Calculates HRA Exemption which an Employee is Eligible. 3. In Built Arrears Relief Calculator to Calculate tax Relief Receivable by the Employee on Salary Received during the year related to years earlier then Financial year 2012-13.
