K. Srinivas CWA A bank cheque is a written order directing your bank to pay a certain sum of money against your bank balance. Almost every one of us use cheques extensively to make payments for utility bills, insurance payments etc; Writing a cheque may sound simple to many of us but believe me, writing […]
A Rajkot-based chartered accountant, approved by the government for evaluating firms involved in commodity market, was caught by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) officials for demanding and accepting Rs 1.5 lakh at a five-star hotel in Satellite on Thursday night. Dilip Patel, a director in Investmentor Commodities Ltd, was approached by Ronak Davda, a partner in RSD and Associates, a Rajkot-based firm on April 5.
Undisclosed income exceeding Rs. 9,200 crore detected by CBDT during the search operations in the financial year 2011-12 During the financial year (FY) 2011-12, the Investigation Directorates of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) conducted searches on 330 groups involved in different businesses / activities. On the basis of assets, documents and other evidence unearthed during such searches, undisclosed income exceeding Rs.9,200 crore was detected. Number of search warrants executed in FY 2011-12 was 5,132 as against 4,852 warrants executed in FY 2010-11. Unaccounted assets of the value of Rs.880 crore (including cash amounting to Rs.500 crore) were seized in FY 2011-12 as against assets of the value of Rs.775 crore (including cash amounting to Rs.440 crore) seized in FY 2010-11.
Composition dealers in Maharashtra (excluding works contract composition dealers covered by 5% or 8% Scheme) who are not liable to submit Audit Report in form No. 704 SHALL NOT be required to submit ANNEXURES. No Change in Due Date For Submission of Return or Payment. Due Date Shall Be 30th April.
ORDER NO. 4/FT&TR/2012 [F.No. 500/15/2011-FT&TR-I], dated 10-4-2012 In partial modification of order No.1/FT&TR/2012 and order No. 2/FT&TR/2012, and in exercise of powers conferred under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Board hereby constitutes the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax/Directors of Income-tax as Members of DRP at the places given below, who shall perform such duties in addition to their regular duties with immediate effect and until further order:
Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that similar action was taken by the AO for the assessment year 2003-0-4 also, which was reversed in the first appeal. He placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13-08-2009 in ITA No.4960/Mum/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04 by which the Revenue’s appeal, under similar circumstances, came to be dismissed. A copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Tribunal for the earlier year, was also placed on record by which the Revenue’s appeal has been dismissed. The ld. DR was fair enough to concede that the facts and circumstances of the instant year are similar to those for the assessment year 2003-04. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
Appellant had shown receipt of a sum ofRs.45,67,375/- on account of job work from Sunita Crimpers and further receipts of Rs.13,06,422/- on account of labour charges. In the tax audit report it has been mentioned that Sunita Crimpers had made the total payment of Rs.59,29,759/- i.e. a sum of Rs.58,37,799/- should paid on account of job work charges and further a sum of Rs.59,962/- on account of purchase of oil by Sunita Crimpers. It is also a fact that the activity of texturising of yarn was controlled by the Excise and therefore related excise recorded were maintained.
ITAT held that the correct nature of transactions is sale of product and not any fees for technical services requiring deduction of tax at source.
ROS has also gone into disputes with regard to registration of members and the list of voters of the petitioner society. This aspect was also clearly beyond his jurisdiction. A dispute with regard to the membership, and the right of a particular member to vote at the elections is a dispute which arises between a society and its members. Such a dispute cannot be resolved by the Registrar. This is clearly beyond his jurisdiction.
I am directed to invite your attention to the Board’s Circular No. 12/2006- Customs dated 20.2.2006 and the earlier instructions issued to the field formations vide Board’s letters F. No. 711(7)/53-Cus. (AS) dated 27.5.1993, F. No.30/33/67-LC.I dated 19.1.68 and F.No.30/3/64-LC.I dated 10.2.1964 in the matter of disposal of
