It is important to check the status of Private Limited Company, if the shareholder of such Private Limited is Body Corporate incorporated outside India. It is also important from the audit point of view since if the status of such Private Limited Company is established as Subsidiary of Public u/s 4(7) of Companies Act, 1956 then all the Compliances under Companies Act, 1956 has to be been taken care as it is a Public Company.
It has been observed that a large part of litigation in the Direct Taxes matters involves interpretation of legal provisions. Lack of desired clarity on a contentious legal issue, amongst the officers of the department, sometimes leads to inconsistent approach on the same issue giving rise to further litigation. With a view to provide clarity on contentious legal issues, promote consistency of approach on a given issue and reduce litigation, it has been decided to set up the following institutional mechanism to formulate ‘Departmental View’ on contentious legal issues:
A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Power 14.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Petroleum 15.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Mbo Highways 16.A representative not below the rank of Joint Secretary from Wo Urban
After examination of the activities of the assessee samiti and after considering CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, dated 19-12-2008, it is found that the admitted facts of the case under consideration are that the assessee-trust is carrying on the activities in respect of medical relief. It is found that Samiti/institution/entities whose object is ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’ would continue to be eligble for exemption as charitable institutions even if they incidentally carry on a commercial activity.
The Revenue’s case is that the provision of sec. 50C having come on the statute book with effect from 1-4-2003, and the capital asset which is the subject-matter of transfer, being land, the same would apply, and thus stands rightly invoked by the AO. The assessee’s case, and on the basis of which it found favour with the first appellate authority, is that the transfer in the first five (5) cases stood effected much prior the relevant year, i.e., on 15-01-1998
The assessee had disclosed full details in the Return of Income in the matter of its dealing in stocks and shares. According to the assessee, the loss incurred was a business loss, whereas, according to the Revenue, the loss incurred was a speculative loss. Rejection of the objections of the assessee to the re-opening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer vide his Order dated 23rd June, 2006, is clearly a change of opinion. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order re-opening the assessment was not maintainable.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2006, passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.C. No.54 of 2005 dismissing the Appeal on the ground that in the absence of any specific finding whatsoever as to the rate of rent and the period of default committed by the respondent-tenant, the proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956, for winding-up was not maintainable.
Ld. AR submits that appellant was not registered as service tax payer and as such no authorised representative stands mentioned by him. As the impugned order was served at the residential address of the appellant, it has to be considered as proper service of the order.
The assessee claims deduction for expenses incurred to earn amounts which are exempted from tax. The case involves the interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The Kolkata High Court has said that no substantial question of law arises in this case. There is no judgment of the Kolkata High Court on the interpretation of Section 14A of the Act. Section 14A has been introduced in the Act to say that expenses incurred to earn the amount, which is exempted from tax, would not be entitled to a deduction. This point has not been considered in the impugned judgment of the Kolkata High Court.
So far the question of benefit under s. 10B of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has submitted that the view as taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained for the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2010] 186 Taxman 439 (SC) holding, inter alia, that step-wise activity of cutting marble blocks and converting into the polished slabs and tiles constituted manufacture or production in terms of s. 80-IA of the Act while distinguishing the decision in Aman Marble’s case (supra), and while observing, inter alia, held as under:
