Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
As we are witnessing the major changes in the Service Tax Rules/Acts recently. Under Reverse Charge Mechanism the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax instead of service provider. However in certain cases both service provider and service recipient has been made liable to pay service tax. The service receiver has to register himself under service tax and service receiver cannot claim general exemption limit of 10 Lakh rupees.
Now coming to the issue in question about the head of taxability, the provisions of Section 28(va) have been narrated above. Except from raising general argument about colourable device, lower authorities have not disputed the arguments of the assessee about applicability of Section 28(va),
This Note relates to the significance of the recent judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs Industrial Fin. Corpn. of India [2012] 346 ITR 11 (Guj), which deals with the interpretation of the provisions of section 281 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), relating to Certain transfers to be void. As per aforesaid judgement, section 281 of the Act,
Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmental inaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.
It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction.
Issue is whether such a notification given on 22nd May 2009, thorugh which MCX Stock Exchange has been recognized, can be held to be applicable for the transaction undertaken in the assessment year 2007-08 i.e., after 1st April 2006. From the combined reading of clause (d) of proviso to section 43(5), Rule 6DDA, 6DDB and Explanation (ii) to section 43(5), it would be seen that the rules which has been prescribed are only procedural in nature,
Since no provision is made in the Act or the Rules for claiming refund of excess TDS deducted with respect to remittance to the foreign company, CBDT issued its circular No. 769, dated 6-8-1998 and made provision for granting such refund to the Indian assessee deductee under the following circumstances:
On a plain reading of the statutory provisions of section 54, it is clear that an agreement for sale or an agreement to sell itself does not create any interest or charge in such property. Mulla on ‘Transfer of Property Act’ clearly states that section 54 enacts that an agreement for the sale of land does not itself create an interest in land.
On going through the remaining object of the trust, read with the provisions of sections 2(15), 12A, 12AA of the Income Tax Act, and the case laws cited by the AR, we find that there has been compliance to section 12A as required under the provisions, so far as provisions of section 2(15) are concerned, we find that the amendment talks about preservation of environment.
