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!
The question involved in this appeal is, whether excise duty and sales tax need to be included in the total turnover in the formula – ‘Business income’ multiplied by ‘export turnover’ and divided by ‘total turnover’ in Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
LETTER [F.NO. ADDL. DIT/INTL. TAXATION/2012-13] Jurisdiction over non-resident assessee lies with the AOs under administrative control of DGIT (Intl. Tax). It has been observed by DGIT (Intl. Tax.) that PAN of many non-resident assessees are lying with the AOs who do not have jurisdiction over them.
It is to be noted that in the instant case what has been transferred by the assessee is the tenancy right which is very much part of the capital asset as envisaged in sub-section (2)(a) of section 55. Sub-section (2)(a) of section 55 stipulates that cost of acquisition in relation to asset, inter alia, tenancy rights not falling under sub-clause (1)(iv) of sub-section (1) of section 49 shall be taken to be nil.
In large number of cases, we find a peculiar phenomenon. In cases, where huge revenue/demand from the Department is involved, invariably, there is inordinate delay in filing appeals before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in filing special leave petitions before this Court.
No doubt, payment of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory but it is for the Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order or while passing the reassessment or rectification order to direct payment of interest.
Notification No.42 /2012-Customs (ADD) Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 99/2007-Customs, dated the 3rd September, 2007, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R.571(E), dated the 3rd September, 2007, namely: –
Letter No. DIT(L&R)-I/delay in SLP/2012-13 I am directed to bring to your kind notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a serious view in cases of delay in filing appeals in the High Courts as also SLPs. In a particular case of delayed filing the responsibility has been directed to be fixed and action taken suitably. I am directed to Impress upon officers in the field formation to strictly adhere to the timelines laid down in instructions No 4 and 7 of 2011.
Power to rectify an order, under Section 254 (2) is extremely limited. It does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. Those, properly fall within appellate review of an order of court of first instance. What legitimately falls for consideration are errors (mistakes) apparent from the record.
On the perusal of trust deed, it would be clear that trust was created wholly for a particular purpose and religious community i.e. Hindu and not for charitable purposes and thus, it contravenes the conditions laid down in section 80G(5) (iii) read with Explanation 3.
In ‘Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.’ (supra), the assessee had claimed higher depreciation @ 40% during the assessment proceedings, as against @ 20% in the tax audit report. The Tribunal held that the claim of higher depreciation in the assessment proceedings could not be termed as a new claim and that Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was only in respect of a new claim made in the assessment proceedings and not modification of claim.
