It appears that there is a difference between the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act and those of Section 23(4) thereof. However, it is not so. As per Section 23(1)(c), if any part of the property was let out and was vacant during the year or any part thereof, and due to such vacancy, the annual rent received or receivable was less than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the lesser of the two amounts, i.e., t
A very heavy onus is placed on the assessee to explain the difference between the assessed income and returned income and the assessee in the instant case did not discharge the said onus. In the light of the discussion made above and conduct of the assessee, it is thus clear that all the material facts and particulars relating to the assessee’s computation of income were never disclosed by the assessee,
Notification No. 108/2012-Customs (N.T.), DATED THE 6th December, 2012 S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.99/2012-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the 16th November, […]
As per the existing provisions of Minimum Wages Act, minimum wages are revised quinquennially in the Central Sphere. In order to protect the minimum wages against inflation, the Central Government introduced the idea of Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) since 1989.
The provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) have been made applicable to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Developers and Units with effect from 1st April, 2012. The SEZ sector has seen a sharp slowdown due to a number of reasons including withdrawal of exemption from MAT and Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) provisions, uncertain fiscal regime for SEZs, global slowdown in exports etc.
Under the scheme, announced in the 2012-13 Union Budget, new investors can avail tax benefits who invest up to Rs. 50,000 in the stock market and whose gross total annual income is less than or equal to Rs. 10 lakh. The scheme was notified by the Department of Revenue, Finance Ministry on November 23 this year.
There is no dispute on the fact of delay of 1529 days as well as on non-furnishing of any affidavit by the Counsels affirming that assessee had a conference with the Counsels which give raise to the necessity of filing the impugned cross objections. Further, there is no explanation as to why and under what circumstances, the assessee approached the Counsels on 26-12-2008 only and not within 30 days from the receipt of the notice.
There is no quarrel on the point that the assessee, being an insurance company is not required to prepare its accounts as per Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (2) of section 211 are required every profit and loss accounts of the Companies shall be prepared as per the requirement of Part II of Schedule VI.
In all foreign countries operation was carried out through assessee’s branches which was a permanent establishment situated outside India. Hence, the income attributable to these branches cannot be taxed in India. This issue has also been decided in favour of the assessee by Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1997-98. Therefore, appeal filed by the department was to be dismissed.
It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record.
