Assessee is a limited company. The Government of Gujarat floated Sale Tax Deferment Scheme. For facilitating the industrial units to avail such benefit of the Sale Tax Incentive Scheme in the State, pari passu charge was to be created in favour of the Sales Tax Department, as decided by the Government of Gujarat and as such deferred amount of sales tax was considered as a “deemed loan” and the present respondent acted as a nodal agency for the scheme.
Vide letter dated 27.04.2013 the CBDT has informed the names of 141 Income Tax Officers who are to be appointed in the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT) in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600 – 39,100 (plus grade pay of Rs. 5,400 in Pay Band -3). Download CBDT letter dated. 27.04.2013
1. For incorporating a private limited company, there must be: At Least 2 Promoters: Promoters who will promote/ incorporate the company. Promoters may be individual or body corporate. AND
The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. In any case, the Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
Government issued order enhancing the Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government Employees with effect from 1.1.2013 from the existing 72% to 80%.
With this amplification of the scope of the power of the DRP, now even the matters not agitated by the assessee before the DRP can also be considered for the purposes of enhancement.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 80G(5)(i)(b) provides the condition for exemption or rejection of the application for renewal, if the donation made to the institution or funds are not used by it directly or indirectly for the purpose of such business. In the present case the Commissioner did not record any such finding that the funds, which was earmarked and was kept in separate account in fixed deposit was not used by the respondent assessee directly or indirectly. Infact there was no occasion to misuse the funds as the hospital had not yet started and thus the plant and machinery could not be purchased from the grant, which was kept in fixed deposit.
Abacus Distribution wins stay against Rs.8.81 Cr tax demand. Transfer pricing & depreciation issues contested. Next hearing on 8th July 2013.
The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette and valid up to the 29th July, 2014 and shall be payable in Indian currency.
