The petitioner has been claiming that he is dealing in hedging besides in the wholesale business of gold and silver ornaments. To insure against price fluctuations, he has been hedging in such metals in MCX. The claim of the assessee, therefore, had to be examined in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (5) to section 43 of the Act. If for some reason such claim was not sustainable,
A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended.
. Some lawyers have pointed out that some of the items notified now like tea, bread etc. were earlier taxed on the rates mentioned in Schedule –B or were tax free and covered under Schedule A. But, now after this notification, their rate seems to have been substantially increased to 14.5%.
We find that society is running the school under the management of receiver appointed by Hon’ble High Court. For the entire years the income of the school was exempt and for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had obtained prior approval of CCIT, Panchkulla for exemption u/s 10(23)(vi).
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued its first Central Excise Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX, dated January 01, 2013 on eve of New Year 2013, for recovery of confirmed demands during pendency of Stay applications. The Circular has rescinded seven previous circulars on the subject matter.
On the other hand, the ld. D.R. while agreeing that the interest on fixed deposits pledged with the bank on account of margin money is eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act submits that in view of the finding recorded by the A.O. the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 10A of the Act in respect of interest on NSC and interest on loan given to its employees. He, therefore, submits that to this extent the order passed by the A.O. be upheld.
Undisputedly, the assessee company earned income of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- only by way of Engineering fees. Another amount of Rs 4,65,00,000/- had been received as tooling advance. This latter amount was to be paid to the vendors of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. This payment was a reimbursement.
Section 12B was introduced in the MRTP Act by Act 30 of the 1984 as an independent remedy for a claimant in addition to a suit that he may file to claim any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as would be clear from sub-section (4) of section 12B. There is no reference at all in section 12B of the MRTP Act to the provisions of either section 10
The tribunal took the view that the addition made was only on the basis of the discrepancy in the TDS Certificate and not on the basis of any finding that some extra charges were received by the assessee, but had not been accounted for.
Admittedly, as per TDS certificate issued by Mysore Breweries Limited, the total reimbursement made to the assessee as per their newly arrangement was Rs. 3,35,85,000/-. However, in the books of assessee, it was only Rs. 2,54,97,000/-. The assessee had explained that a credit note of Rs. 80,88,000/- issued by it in favour of Mysore Breweries Limited was not accounted for by them
