A plain reading of the said provisions would reveal that what is required for the purpose of seeking approval thereunder is that the University or other educational institution should exist ‘solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit’. It is nowhere the case and/or finding of the learned CCIT that on account of the said defect in the admission procedure, the Trust ceased to exist solely for educational purposes and/or it existed for the purposes of profit.
We do not find any merit in such argument. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana, recorded a finding that the Assessing Officer has reported that the voluminous nature of entries cannot be verified. Once the Assessing Officer himself has failed to verify the entries, there is no reason to disallow the distribution expenses. It is a rule of thumb which was applied by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ludhiana to allow expenses to the tune of 40%, which has been found to be unjustified by the Tribunal.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 15, read with clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, further to amend the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure for Investigation of Misbehaviour or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010, namely :—
The plea of learned counsel for the OL that as and when the monies become available for disbursement as a result of the proceedings under the RDDB Act they should be placed at the disposal of the OL is different from the law explained by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Financial Corporation (supra). What appears from a careful reading of paras 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment is that the OL has certainly to be associated in all the proceedings of sale by public auction or otherwise of the properties of the company in liquidation and the orders of the DRT. As noted hereinbefore, the DRT has issued notices to the OL at every stage. The Court is now informed that since 2012, the OL has been participating in the proceedings before the DRT and now before the DRAT. Therefore, there may be no apprehension that the orders might be passed in the proceedings under the RDDB Act without the participation of the OL. It is for the OL to diligently pursue those proceedings hereinafter.
Notification No. 14/2013 – Income Tax Whereas the annexed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income signed in Addis Ababa on the 25th May, 2011 shall come into force on the 15th day of October, 2012
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.20/2013-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue.
The agricultural land situated in areas lying within a distance not exceeding 8 kms. from the local limits of Municipalities or Cantonment Boards are covered by the amended definition of ‘capital asset’, if such areas are, having regard to the extent of and scope for their urbanization and other relevant considerations, is notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Central Government in its Notification No. 11186 dated 28-12-1999 clearly clarifies that agricultural land situated in rural areas, areas outside the municipality or cantonment board etc.,
We see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the Bombay High Court. However, Mr Sabharwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability.
Policy Circular No.9/2009-14 dated 1.10.2009 had clarified that supply of goods against Advance Release Order (ARO) is eligible for refund of duty drawback only and not for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) and supplies against invalidation letter is eligible for Advance Authorisation and TED refund.
