Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
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!
It is known that section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 entitles minority shareholders, subject to the qualification prescribed, to approach the Company Law Board (CLB) under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking relief against the ‘oppression and mis-management’ from the majority shareholders in the Company. As majority shareholders effectively controls the Board through their say in General Body Meetings, the protection to the majority is not envisaged though even the majority can approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 when they become artificial minority under certain circumstances.
The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner under section 84 as this section stood prior to 19-8-2009. It was passed on 24-3-2011. With effect from 19-8-2009, the date on which a new appellate remedy was granted in the place of the erstwhile revisionary remedy against orders passed by Central Excise officers subordinate to Commissioner of Central Excise, section 84 offers appellate remedy against an order passed by an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The provision for revision of such an order by the Commissioner ceased to be in force on 19-8-2009.
In the instant case, the assessee is a resident assessee. It is not borne out of record as to whether the ‘UK company’ is a resident assessee or non-resident assessee. Though the assessee claims that it is acting only as an agent of the ‘UK company’, yet the said claim has not been verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. Even, if the assessee is considered as an agent of the UK company, in view of section 5, the said UK Company is also liable to pay tax on its Indian income and if it claims that it is not liable to pay tax as per the DTAA entered by the Central Government with the Government of UK, then it is the
The owners have entered into an agreement for development of the property and certain rights were assigned to the developer who in turn had made the substantial payment and, consequently, entered into the property and, thereafter, if the transferee has taken steps in relation to construction of the flats, then it is to be considered as transfer under section 2(47)(v).
Whether the exemption u/s 54 will be available, in case, capital gain arising from sale of more than one residential house, is invested in one residential house. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee argued that there was no restriction under section 54 that capital gain arising from two residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. We find substance in the argument advanced by the Id. counsel for the assessee.
The assessee is getting twin benefit from the employer, one of which is not taxed on the basis of reimbursement of rent by the assessee to the employer. The first benefit is of rent free accommodation provided by the employer to the assessee employee for which the employer is incurring rental expenditure of Rs. 1.70 lacs per month in addition to providing interest free deposit of Rs. 40 lacs with the land lord. The 2nd benefit being received by the assessee is this that he is getting HRA of Rs.3 lacs approximately per month including special HRA of Rs.1.70 lacs per month.
A partnership which admits a partner in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash does not effect towards that person a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
The assessee had also challenged that in the assessment order the AO has not recorded finding that there was concealment of income. He has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madhu Shree Gupta while examining the constitutional validity of sub-sec.1B of section 271(1)(c) has held that the presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post-amendment.
Assessee having constructed the building and invested the capital gain, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act if other conditions discussed herein below are fulfilled.
The information is to be filed in Form 5- INV as per the above mentioned rules; and thereafter an excel sheet containing detailed investor wise details is to be filed separately. The e Form, the excel template and detailed steps are provided in the IEPF application link on the portal www.iepf.gov.in.For financial year ended on 31st March 2011, the eForm should be filed latest by 31st July 2012.
