Assessing 0fficer can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The condition precedent for the Assessing 0fficer entering upon a determination of the amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income
It has been held that the right to receive retention money accrues only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled. Therefore, it will not amount to income of the assessee in the year in which amount is retained.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and Paragraph 1.1 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I), the Directorate General of Foreign Trade hereby notifies a new SION bearing number A-3642 in respect of the export product “Amyl Salicylate”. The new entry would be as under.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Paragraph 2.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 and Paragraph 1.1 of Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I), the Directorate General of Foreign Trade hereby notifies a new SION bearing number A-3641 in respect of the export product “Verdyl Propionate”. The new entry would be as under.
Interest payable to Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and Qualified Foreign Investors (QFIs) on rupee denominated corporate bonds or government securities The proposal made in the Finance Bill 2013, to provide that the concessional rate of TDS on payment of interest will be available where a non-resident or a foreign company has deposited any sum of […]
Following the decision of ACE Builders (P) 28 ITR 2000(Bom) and Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt Ltd 262 ITR 58 (Gau). It was held that Section 54E does not make any distinction between the depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets, therefore, the investment u/s 54E is a permissible investment.
The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in not appreciating that benefit u/s.54EC is granted on capital gains and not on sale proceeds of capital asset. And that capital gain in respect of depreciable assets can be arrived at only u/s.50 and therefore, deeming provisions of section 50 cannot be ignored for the purpose of section 54EC.
As regards the second gound raised before the Tribunal with regard to the addition of Rs. 6,72,9 10/-, that issue was decided in favour of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 by the CIT (Appeals) and it has not been questioned by the revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, following the said decision, the Tribunal confirmed the view taken by the CIT (Appeals). Even on that aspect, no interference is called for.
In my considered opinion, the appellant fell within the ambit of “outdoor caterer” as defined at all times inasmuch as he was admittedly catering food to Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. at a place owned by the latter and it is not the case of the appellant that he was the owner of those premises. In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax prior to 16.6.2005 also. For the period from 16.6.2005, there is no room for doubt inasmuch as the amended definition is explicit. Accordingly it has to be held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the head “outdoor catering service” on the catering charges collected from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. for the entire period.
In the case of Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the statute does not provide any remedy by way of review. There are other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that in the absence of specific statutory provision. Tribunal cannot exercise review powers and only rectification of mistake can be made when such mistake is apparent on the face of the record which must be an obvious mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible.
