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!
Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT [2012] 79 DTR (Trib) 315 (Mum), has rendered a very significant judgement relating to disallowance under section 14A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. The appellants have not stated any other valid reason.
In terms of Notification NO XCA(7)/145/2012 dated 1st August 2012, Integrated Professional Competence Examination(IPCE), stands renamed as Intermediate (IPC) Examination and would be known accordingly, with effect from May 2013 examination onwards.
We find that, the AO accepts that the assessee is an infrastructure developer. But we look into the main objection of the AO that being a developer by itself is not enough to avail the deduction, but the assessee should have maintained, operated and handed it back to the government.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
The computation of benefit of gratuity and leave encashment, as contemplated under section 10(10) and 10(10AA) are to be governed by the definition of ‘salary’ contained in the Explanation to section 10(10) and not by any agreement, to section 10(10) viz., 8th Bipartite Settlement on wage revision and other similar conditions between Indian Banks’ Association and their Workmen.
Even though the parameter for considering the expenditure and income is not the same, yet the principle to be followed is that when the instrument concerned is certain as to its period of life and specifically points out to a particular interest amount to be paid on the maturity date, the question of assessing the entire interest in the first year itself does not arise.
Para 5.11.2 of the Hand Book of Procedure Volume – 1 (HBP V-I) permits re-fixation of Annual Average Export Obligation, in case the export in any sector/product group decline by more than 5%. This implies that for the sector/product group that witnessed such decline in a licensing year as compared to the previous licensing year would be entitled for such relief.
All Regional Offices are requested to re-fix the annual average export obligation for EPCG Authorizations for the year 2011-12 accordingly. Reduction, if any, in the EO should be appropriately endorsed in the licence file of the office of RA as also in the Amendment Sheet to be issued to the EPCG Authorisation holder.
