It was held had held that Disallowance u/s 14A for the period before AY 2008-09 i.e pre-Rule 8D period, should be restricted to 2% of the dividend income. Shakuntaladevi Trade & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
As regards assessee’s submission that the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) will not come into play in this case because the entire testing process is automated, it is well settled that when no human intervention is involved in any services, such services cannot be treated to be of the nature which can be covered by the scope of section 9(1)(vii).
The provisions of the Act does not apply to acquisitions under 16 existing legislations including the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Railways Act, 1989, etc.
The High Court’s power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.
Sub-section (iv) of the Section 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that no tax shall be deducted from any interest payable on any security of the Central Government or a State Government, provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to the interest exceeding rupees ten thousand payable on 8% Savings (Taxable) Bonds, 2003 during the financial year.
The Andhra Pradesh HC has held in the case Shri M. Jaffer Saheb (Decd.) Vs. CIT that interest granted under Section 244A of the Act on income tax refund is chargeable to tax on accrual basis and has to be spread over the respective years for which interest is being granted.
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.117/2013-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has taken serious view of the pendency of eforms in various offices of the MCA in South East Region and issued instructions to this Directorate to take steps to impress upon the certifying professionals (CA/CS/CMA) to completely avoid defective filings so as to facilitate early disposal of eforms.
Since there is variation of decisions on ‘paid’ and ‘payable’ issue in view of the fact that the hon’ble Calcutta high court and Gujarat high court have decided the question in favour of the Revenue and the hon’ble Allahabad high court in the case of CIT vs M/s Vector shipping Services (P) Ltd has proceeded in favour of the assessee, the case law of hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 would apply so as to decide the issue in assessee’s favour.
From the record, it appears that originally, the dispute was between Accountant and Judicial Members of the Tribunal and it was not functioning. So, adjournment was sought by the petitioner, but the same was refused. However, on 06.03.2013, the case of the petitioner was decided in favour of the assessee in his presence.
