TCS means collection of tax at source by the seller (collector) from the buyer (collectee/payee) of the goods (specified u/s 206C of Income-tax Act, 1961, like timber obtained under forest lease, scrap, any other forest produce not being timber or tendu leaves etc.,). For e.g. if purchase value of goods is Rs.10,000/-, the buyer will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- + X (X being the value of TCS as prescribed under Income-tax Act, 1961) to the seller. The seller will deposit the tax collected at source (TCS) at any of the designated branches of the authorised banks.
The only dispute by the Revenue is that the amount of remuneration has not been quantified in the partnership deed. It is mentioned in clause 8 of the partnership deed that remuneration will be payable as per norms fixed by the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Thus the quantification of the remuneration is apparent from the clause 8 of the partnership deed.
The captioned appeal is fixed for hearing before the Hon’ble ‘G’ Bench today. The appellant has received partial relief. As the tax effect of the remaining issue is not significant, the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. In the circumstances, kindly allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal.
One thing is clear that the DR has not challenged the allowability of deduction u/s. 80-O, he has shown serious reservations on the basis of allowability, i.e. whether the deduction should be allowed on net amount or on gross amount.
Though the Appellant had treated it as itemised-sale of assets. The Appellant had sold business of Sealants and Adhesives as a whole to PIL.Therefore, the provisions of Sec.50B have been rightly invoked by both the lower authorities.
The facts emerging out of the assessment order are that the assessee is dealing in organic manure. For the year under consideration, the return of income declaring the total income of Rs.13,50,000/- was efiled on 30.10.2007. This case was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee.
Notification No. 27/2012-Customs (ADD) Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/14/2011-DGAD, dated the 2nd May, 2012, published in Part I, Section 1 of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated the 2nd May, 2012, had initiated review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995
On the date of issue of notice under section 148 on 31-3-2008 by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, the earlier view taken by the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143(3) on 31-3-2006 was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (supra), and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 170.
Disallowance u/s 14A required a finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income, no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A could not stand. In the present case, as seen, the AO has not established any nexus whatsoever between the borrowed funds and the investment made. Therefore, Hero Cycles (supra), is applicable.
There is no requirement in Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued under Section 148. The requirement in Section 149(1) is only that the notice under Section 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation
