Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Assessee filed the return of income on 23.12.2008. The due date for filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration in the case of the assessee is 3 1.10.2008. As such the return filed by the assessee is belated. In this the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the return of the assessee was not filed within the time as prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing the return of income that the assessee was preparing its accounts through computer and the computer got corrupted due to viruses and in spite of continuous efforts by the computer technical personnel to retrieve the data in time for filing the return of income, problem persisted in the system.
Notification No. 47/2012 – Customs (N. T.), Dated- 31st of May, 2012 S.O. … (E).– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 642 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms, 1956, namely: –1. (1) These rules may be called the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules, 2012.
In the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, after section 63, the following section shall be inserted, namely:—63-A. Accounts to be audited in certain cases.—(1) Every registered dealer whose total turnover including zero-rate sale and sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce as specified in section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) in a year, exceeds one crore rupees, shall get his accounts in respect of that year, audited by an Accountant and submit a report of such audit in the prescribed Form, duly signed and verified by the Accountant, to the Assessing authority, within such period as may be prescribed.
In the facts of the present case, the assessee had deducted tax at source out of payments made to contractor totalling Rs. 1,21,75,828 which was deposited on 8-7-2008. The due date for filing return of income of the assessee was 30-9-2008. Following the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Virgin Creations (supra) and various Benches of the Tribunal it is held that once the tax has been deducted and deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing return of income, there is no merit in disallowing the expenditure relatable to such tax deducted at source. The assessee succeeds on both the counts. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has to be directed to allow the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,01,33,953.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah. IX of 2005), the Government of Maharashtra hereby rescinds with effect from the 1st April 2012, the Government Notification, Finance Department, No. VAT.1507/CR-44/ Taxation-1, dated the 6th December 2007.
The guarantor of a loan is liable to pay it if the debtor fails to clear it, the Supreme Court has ruled, while maintaining that financial institutions too cannot act like property dealers in recovering the debts. The apex court gave the ruling on an appeal by one Ganga Kishun, who had stood as a guarantor to a bank loan, raised by one Ganga Prasad, who had died without clearing it. Ganga Kishun had come to the apex court against the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to recover the loan arrears from him after the death of principal debtor Ganga Prasad.
Held – Where the minimum sentence is provided, we think it would not be at all appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence on the ground of the so-called mitigating factors as that would tantamount to supplanting statutory mandate and further it would amount to ignoring the substantive statutory provision that prescribes minimum sentence for a criminal act relating to demand and acceptance of bribe.
As per CPE learning which is eligible for CPE credit for Unstructured Learning Activities(ULAs), the members are required to submit their Self-declaration in the form enclosed once in a year before 31st May, to avail the CPE Hours Credit for the ULAs undergone by them in the previous year. These forms would have to be submitted to the concerned Decentralized Offices. The members could also submit the same to the Sub-Decentralized Offices for onward submission to the concerned Decentralized Offices.
In this case Assessing officer has made disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) on payment for hiring charges for transponder, paid to PanAmSat Limited on the ground that no tax has been deducted at source by the assessee, u/s. 195 of the Act. Argument of learned Departmental Representative that the amendment to the Finance Act, 2012 changes the position, we find that there is no change in the DTAA between India and USA. Thus, the amendments have no affect on our decision.
