Assessee was granted right of lifting water from said well which is independent right given by the State Government for the rent of Rs. one per year. There is also nothing to suggest that right of lifting of water was acquired by assessee by incurring any cost. Such right is not covered by the provisions of section 55(2). Therefore, no capital gain could be worked out, since provisions of section 45(1) read with section 48(1) are not applicable in respect of payment made to assessee in lieu of surrendering the right to lift the water from the well. Accordingly, capital gain as worked out by the Assessing Officer is not justified.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the return for the period 1st April 2012 to 30th June 2012, from 25th October, 2012 to 25th November,2012.
Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises. The Environmental law expects the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws.
F.No. -Infrastructure/Project/EMBP/ 9(Part-VII)/2012-13/450 This is to bring to the notice of all the tax payers, tax practioners and all other persons concerned that all the offices under the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, II & III, Kolkata, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)(Appeal)-I, II & III, Kolkata, the Commissioner of Income Tax– XII, Kolkata and the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing), Kolkata have been shifted to Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110 Shanti Palli, (opposite Ruby Hospital), Kasba, E.M.By-Pass, Kolkata.
A creditor can maintain a winding up petition if he complies with the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the said Act of 1956. In the present case, the respondent-Bank was admittedly a creditor of the company. The company did not dispute such relationship. The company did not dispute receipt of the notice, hence, the winding up petition was maintainable.
Gazette Notification Dt. 27th March, 2012 issued by Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section), Ministry of Finance on “Harmonised Master list of Infrastructure sub-sectors” and amended by Department of Economic Affairs from time to time by way of new notification.
It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction under section92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was argued by Ld. DCIT (DR) Mr. Tarsem Lal that the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Surinder Mahajan, could not point out any specific mention in the statute.
The various clauses of the MOUs need to be examined in the light of the criteria laid down by the Courts to determine whether the doctors attached to the appellant hospital are employees of the hospital. The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine whether a particular relationship amounts to employer-employee relationship is the existence of a right of control in respect of the manner in which work is to be done by the person employed
M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by clarifying the legal position that services rendered in relation to the execution of a works contract in respect of Railways is not taxable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for short). I find no legal impediment to clarify the legal position.
It is a cardinal principle of construction that when a legislation confers power, its amplitude cannot be cut down by instructions or rules or regulations made by subordinate authorities. Instructions and Rules can only supplement but can never supplant or limit the width of the statutory powers. In this case, the AO – as is evident from a reading of the impugned order – has not applied his mind at all to the facts much less considered what are the circumstances which either justify the grant of relief or its refusal. Furthermore, even the petitioner does not appear to have been given any opportunity to make even a briefest submission in support of its case.
