Auditors List Updated on 30th March 2013 Orders of Hon’ble Commissioner Regarding Empanelment of Auditors Auditor Panel List Amravati Aurangabad Kolhapur Konkan Latur
During the course of assessment proceedings it was observed by AO that the assessee was following ‘exclusive method’ of valuing the cost of its inventory by not increasing it with the amount of excise duty paid thereon, although as per section 145A purchases and inventories are required to be grossed up to include to duty element. That is how an addition of Rs. 1,25,91,360/- was made.
In the present case, the main dispute is regarding revenue recognition relating to unused talk time remaining available as at the end of the year. As noted earlier, there is no dispute that company had to provide talk time to its subscriber till the expiry of the period of card or till complete utilization of talk time, whichever is earlier. As long as assessee is under obligation to provide talk time, it cannot be said that a debt has accrued in favour of assessee-company against the subscriber.
It is after the deduction under Chapter VI-A that the total income of an assessee is arrived at. Chapter VI-A deductions are the last stage of giving effect to all types of deductions permissible under the Act. At the end of this exercise, the total income is arrived at. Total income is thus, a figure arrived at after giving effect to all deductions under the Act. There cannot be any further deduction from the total income as the total income is itself arrived at after all deductions.
As regards another facet of addition in this case which has resulted from enhancement made by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) by holding that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F(1) on the payment of Rs. 55,70,800/-. This has been denied on the ground that the payment was made by M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee was Director and not by the assessee himself. In this regard, it is the assessee’s claim that the assessee has duly made the arrangement for booking of the flat and necessary documentation were made by the assessee in his individual capacity.
Introduction – The financial management of any organization must have a prudent financial system backed by sound and effective accounting procedures and internal controls. A well-designed and well managed accounting system helps ensure proper control over funds. Accounting policies and procedures are designed to compile accounts fulfilling legal/procedural requirements that govern financial control. Accounts are […]
In the instant case, assessee a recognized trust invested its funds as per instructions of Government of India in various financial institutions and those institutions deducted tax at source from interest earned on fixed deposits. In order to claim refund of TDS erroneously deducted by the financial institutions, the assessee filed returns for relevant assessment years. The AO held that since said returns had been filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, they were to be treated as invalid returns and, thus, application for the TDS refunds was to be rejected. The CIT, however, refused to condone the delay in filing the returns on the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship as envisaged under section 119(2)(b). Contending that the stance taken by the respondent authorities is contrary to law, the petitioner-trust filed this instant writ petition for appropriate relief.
Not resorting to any populist measures, the Government has not touched the direct and indirect tax structures in principle in the Union Budget 2013- 14; neither has it touched the middle class. Some of the experts have felt that they were expecting something more miraculous in the Budget that could tackle the existing economic issues at hand.
Section 9A Of The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 – Quantitative Restrictions – Power Of Central Government To Impose – Notified Developing Countries For Purposes Of Section 9A NOTIFICATION NO. GSR 59(E) [F.NO.01/92/180/106/AM-11/PC-VI/PRA], DATED 31-1-2013 In pursuance of sub-section (4)(a) of section 9A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 […]
In order to be covered under section 22, it is sine qua non that the assessee must be the owner of the house property as per section 27 read with section 269UA(f). In the instant case, the assessee is not the owner of the property. It cannot also be considered as deemed owner of house property within the meaning of section 27 because it took property on lease for a period of three years. Since the assessee was neither the owner nor the deemed owner of the house property, applying the provisions of section 22, the annual value of such property could not have been charged to tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. As it was a case of simple subletting of property, not facilitating the carrying on of the assessee’s business in any manner, the rental income so realized by the assessee could not be considered as ‘Business income’. In such a situation, the same should be included under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for doing the needful accordingly.
