Circular No. 9/2012 Representations have been received from various sections of the Industry on the difficulties faced in the matter of Tax Deduction at Source on Gas Transportation Charges paid by the purchasers of Natural gas to the sellers of gas.
The recent global financial crises, intense regulatory requirements, extensive competitive pressures, voluminous data, have created a challenging environment for financial institutions to operate, make effective decisions, manage risk, thereby affecting financial reporting and regulatory compliance.
The question as to whether the amount constituted the corpus fund of the assessee-trust, in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering declaration from all the 60 donors of the corpus fund certifying that they have donated towards corpus fund of the assessee-society and the revenue has not raised any ground of appeal against the admission of these declarations produced by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the amount in question has to be held as constituting ‘Corpus Fund’ of the assessee-society and accordingly, the order of the Judicial Member on the issue is to be confirmed.
No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.
Mere crediting of the interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which the said interest could be charged to tax. Whatever has been recovered by the assessee has been shown as income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim of such interest under the provisions of section 43D and the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that interest had been credited on such type of debts in the reserve account.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. The facts were available before and were within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. The new Assessing Officer as per the reasons recorded on the basis of the same facts, has observed that royalty payment should have been disallowed as it was capital in nature. This is a question of legal inference or interpretation which has been drawn from the same material facts on record. There is no allegation that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee to furnish and state all material facts.
When an order passed by this Court it is to be considered by the public at large and the same concluded at the instance of this Court. Then it is the duty of this Court to give respect to its order by giving sanctity more than, over and above the highest bid.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested ward-1 Income Tax officer P. Venkateswara Rao who allegedly demanded a bribe from financier M. Srinivasa Reddy of Rayavaram mandal to reduce his Income Tax dues on September 16. The Central Bureau of Investigation had then registered a case against Venkateswara Rao for allegedly demanding a bribe of […]
The validity of a provision cannot be considered or adjudicated upon by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 260A provides for an appeal from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. If it involves a substantial question of law, such question of law should arise from the order of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal cannot consider the validity of a retrospective amendment, no doubt such question does not arise from its order and the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 260A cannot also enable the High Court to consider such validity or otherwise.
