The plea of learned counsel for the OL that as and when the monies become available for disbursement as a result of the proceedings under the RDDB Act they should be placed at the disposal of the OL is different from the law explained by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Financial Corporation (supra). What appears from a careful reading of paras 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment is that the OL has certainly to be associated in all the proceedings of sale by public auction or otherwise of the properties of the company in liquidation and the orders of the DRT. As noted hereinbefore, the DRT has issued notices to the OL at every stage. The Court is now informed that since 2012, the OL has been participating in the proceedings before the DRT and now before the DRAT. Therefore, there may be no apprehension that the orders might be passed in the proceedings under the RDDB Act without the participation of the OL. It is for the OL to diligently pursue those proceedings hereinafter.
Notification No. 14/2013 – Income Tax Whereas the annexed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income signed in Addis Ababa on the 25th May, 2011 shall come into force on the 15th day of October, 2012
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.20/2013-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the
Both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue.
The agricultural land situated in areas lying within a distance not exceeding 8 kms. from the local limits of Municipalities or Cantonment Boards are covered by the amended definition of ‘capital asset’, if such areas are, having regard to the extent of and scope for their urbanization and other relevant considerations, is notified by the Central Government in this behalf. Central Government in its Notification No. 11186 dated 28-12-1999 clearly clarifies that agricultural land situated in rural areas, areas outside the municipality or cantonment board etc.,
We see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the Bombay High Court. However, Mr Sabharwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, raised a pointed question as to whether, in fact, the provision for payment of bonus in this case was actually an ascertained liability.
Policy Circular No.9/2009-14 dated 1.10.2009 had clarified that supply of goods against Advance Release Order (ARO) is eligible for refund of duty drawback only and not for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) and supplies against invalidation letter is eligible for Advance Authorisation and TED refund.
Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
If the provisions of clause (d) of notification dated 23.5.1995 are perused, it can be seen that the income must not have been chargeable to tax on the basis of any order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and it should become taxable as a consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or on a decision of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the case in question is concerned, it can be seen that the petitioner was assessed with the status as a Firm and that subsequently, following the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Co.’s case (supra), assessment was re-opened and the tax was re-assessed treating the petitioner as an Association Of Persons. Therefore, situation as contemplated in paragraph 2 clause (d) was not available to the petitioner to claim the benefit thereof.
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
