Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
In the present case, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs under section 140A of the Act. In addition thereto, the assessee had also suffered tax deduction at source to the tune of Rs. 25,533/-. Eventually, the Assessing Officer, assessed the tax liability of the assessee at total of Rs. 15,08,474/-. Thus the assessee had short-paid tax to the tune of Rs. 4,82,941/-. To our mind, however, when we look at the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (supra), such distinction would not be material. What was held by the Delhi High Court was that charging of interest from an assessee for late filing of return though the tax was already paid, would render the provision penal in nature, which the statute did not provide. If we apply the same ratio in the present case, the only modification we need to adopt is that the assessee must be held to be liable to pay interest under section 234A of the Act on the difference of amount between the tax assessed and the amount which he had paid before the due date to which even the assessee has not raised any serious objection.
Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal The Union Budget 2013-14 presented by Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, his 8th one, could be termed as a balanced, focused and a reasonable one from the point of view of economy and all the stakeholders. Though it may be missing the much needed ignition or spark to put the markets on fire, […]
One of the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative that Section 12AA(3) has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2010 wherein power has been given to cancel registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. In that case the CIT cancelled registration under section 12A of the Act after 01.06.2010, therefore, the fact is different than case under consideration. This contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is not acceptable in the light of above discussions that the CIT cancelled registration under section 12A w.e.f. 2009-10 which is the period prior to 01.06.2010. The C.B.D.T. has also clarified that the amendment in section 12AA(3) is applicable from A.Y. 2011-12.
On a perusal of the definition of franchise given under Section 65(47) under the Finance Act, 1994, we note that it refers to an agreement by which the franchisee is granted representational right to provide service identified with the franchisor whether or not any ‘service mark’ is involved. Prima facie, in the absence of such an agreement, the appellant themselves would have provided the service to the people/State Government in respect of the bridge under the BOT agreement.
Similarly, if the air travels were undertaken by the company’s executives for business purposes, the necessary nexus between the service and the business activities of the appellant does exist. The show-cause notice did not even attempt to make out a case to the contra. Therefore, the case of the appellant is liable to be accepted.
As regards the demand for payment of an amount @ 8% of the value of the exempted goods under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 made out in the show-cause notice, it has been noted that the appellants have not availed any credit of the duty paid either on the raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer or on the raw materials used by them on their own account in the manufacture of job-worked product. When they have not availed any credit of the duty paid on the raw materials, the question of payment of duty @ 8% of the value of the exempted product under Rule 57CC will not arise at all.
From the record, it appears that as on March 31, 2003, the figure of Rs. 1 crore was appearing in schedule IV, under the head unsecured loan” in the balance-sheet. In the earlier year it was appearing as 1. Unsecured loan Rs. 60 lakhs. 2. Share application money Rs. 40 lakhs. During the assessment year under consideration, the same was shown as Rs. 1 crore consolidated. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to what happened to Rs. 40 lakhs which were earlier appearing in the balance-sheet.
The hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the amount of depreciation debited to the account of charitable institutions is to be deducted to arrive at an available income from charitable or religious purposes. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, we therefore, hold that the depreciation is to be deducted to arrive at an income available to charitable and religious purposes.
No workmen or employee of the company had appeared to resist the order of winding up. The conduct of those in management of the company in fraudulently selling off assets conservatively estimated at Rs. 2,300 crore makes it just and equitable for the company to be wound up. The company had been unable to show any prospects of it carrying on any business in the near or the distant future. The company’s inability to pay its debts is established and no ground is shown for the company court to exercise its discretion to not wind up the company despite its obvious insolvency.
The ld. CIT(A) considered the issue in detail in the light of exceptions provided under Rule 6DD in order to grant relief to the assessee for violation of section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee was a Pakka Arahtia and made purchases from Kachcha Arahtias have not been disputed by the ld. DR during the course of arguments. It is also not in dispute that the assessee acted as per Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Rules.
