Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Archive: 24 June 2012

Posts in 24 June 2012

Commission to working director-shareholder cannot be disallowed merely because assessee-company did not declare dividend

June 24, 2012 1508 Views 0 comment Print

The plain reading of sec. 36(1)(ii) contemplates two situations. According to the first situation, any sum paid to an employee as a bonus or commission for services rendered would be allowed to the assessee. The second part exhibits the other condition that the deduction mentioned in the first situation could be allowed, if such sum would have not been payable to an employee as a profit or dividend meaning thereby if the amount of commission or bonus is receivable by an employee in the shape of profit/dividend then such commission paid to such employee would not be allowed as a deduction.

No TDS u/s.194C in absence of contract between contractor & sub-contractor

June 24, 2012 9653 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee is solely responsible for executing the contract with the persons to whom he has given forklift vehicles on hire and it was only for fulfilment of this contract that he has also engaged the forklift vehicles from the outside parties. In case of hiring from outside parties the responsibility and the risk involved for performing the contract work lay with the assessee only and no such risk and responsibility seems to have been transferred to outside parties vis-à-vis his principals.

S. 80-IB(10) – Exemption cannot be denied if Assessee complied with conditions

June 24, 2012 1400 Views 0 comment Print

Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.

Small service provider exemption under Not. No. 6/2005-ST is a statutory benefit & cannot be disregarded

June 24, 2012 1395 Views 0 comment Print

There being no dispute to the services rendered by the appellant under the category of Travel Agent Services, the benefit of notification which are there in the statute, should have been automatically be given to the assessee. Even in the absence of any such claim the benefit should have been granted to them. Be that as it may, the specific plea of the assessee that they are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-ST, cannot be disregarded for the services rendered up to the first four lakhs, during the period April 2005 to March 2006, for which the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification, provided he has not crossed the limit of Rs. Four lakhs during the preceding Financial Year.

Sec. 40A(2)(a) – Onus lies on department to prove excessive or unreasonable expense

June 24, 2012 7974 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the AO found the payment of remuneration to director excessive having regard to either (a) fair market value of the services or facilities; or (b) the legitimate needs of the business of the assessee; or (c) the benefits derived by or accruing to the assessee on receipt of such services or facilities. The AO while making the disallowance observed that disallowance was made keeping in view quantum and nature of business of the assessee. But how quantum or nature of business affected payment of salary to its director, has not been elaborated.

Company not eligible to bring rights issue till prohibitory orders against promoter group is in force

June 24, 2012 2340 Views 0 comment Print

Regulation 4 appears under Chapter II providing common conditions for public issues and rights issues. It prescribes general conditions meaning thereby that unless the requirements laid down in these general conditions are satisfied, the Board will not proceed with granting its clearance for the issue of capital. These conditions must be satisfied not only at the time of filing of draft offer document with the Board but also at the time of registering or filing the final offer document with the Registrar of Companies or designated stock exchange, as the case may be.

In case of Multiple Appeal for an A.Y. tax effect of all appeals to be considered to Compute Appeal Filing Limit

June 24, 2012 1899 Views 0 comment Print

After taking into consideration the Instruction No. 5 of 2008, it is found that by virtue of the said Instruction, the revenue was prohibited from pre

Volatility Transmission in the Exchange Rate of India Rupee

June 24, 2012 2392 Views 0 comment Print

In an environment of growing integration among the financial markets, volatility in the exchange rate of a currency could not only be attributed to domestic macroeconomic and global factors but also attributed to spillover effects emanating from other volatile markets due to market microstructure in terms of differences in timing of trading activity, bid-ask spreads and risk perceptions. In this context, this paper analyses volatility spillovers from the exchange rates of the Brazilian Real, the Russian Ruble, the South Korean Won, the Singapore Dollar, the Japanese Yen, the Swiss Franc, the British Pound Sterling and the Euro to the exchange rate of the Indian Rupee during 2005-11.

All About eFiling on LLP

June 24, 2012 4360 Views 0 comment Print

In order to carry out e-filing on LLP you have facility to download the eform and fill it in an offline mode. Every form has the facility to pre-fill the data available in LLP system. Once the e-form is filled you would need to validate the e-form using Pre-scrutiny button. You would then have to affix the relevant digital signatures and save the form. You would need to be connected to the internet to carry out the pre-fill and pre-scrutiny functions.

If proper source of capital & share premium not shown than addition can be made u/s. 68

June 24, 2012 1397 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the assessee can be said to have discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act in proving the genuineness of the share capital in respect of the impugned 22 shareholders in the light of proposition laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in the cases cited above. The appellant has given all the necessary details in order to establish the identity of the aforementioned share applicants. It is also observed that all the share applicants are corporate assessees, incorporated under Indian Companies Act.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930