Interest accruing or arises to the assessee can be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In this particular case assessee charges a certain amount as finance charge from its borrowers to process the finance further and liability to pay interest accrued later on after the completion of finance.
Whether assessee’s engagement in activities of collection, collation, formatting of data, editing, digital designing etc. can be termed at manufacturing to avail the benefits of section 10B of the Income-tax Act.
Section 41 (1) of the act provides treating of trading liability on cessation as deemed profit in business or profession. But section has to apply when there is benefit upon such cessation in form of any remission.
It would be incongruous and inappropriate in the context of Section 10B of the Act to hold that the respondent-assessee, an 100% export oriented unit, who had refurbished a mini cement plant in Zambia and established a mini steel mill in Kazakhstan
S. 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only when the two conditions, namely, that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted is satisfied. Where tax is deducted by the assessee under a wrong provision of TDS and there is a shortfall, s.40 (a) (ia) disallowance cannot be made.
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
I have prepared a chart on the subject matter of Capital Gain for FY 2014-15 on Shares and Mutual Funds after considering the recent amendments related to changes in taxation of shares and Mutual fund and Considering the complexity involved in the matter. I have tabulated information for quick reference and the same are self explanatory :-
Whether the benefit of export can be denied on account of non-realisation of export proceeds when goods are exported without payment of Excise duty under Bond?
In my opinion, in the present scenario collection of taxes from builders and developers in the State of Rajasthan for the period between 1st April 2014 to 13th July 2014 would not be valid proposition as analyzed on the basis of principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Hon’ble Tribunal held that benefit of Notification 67/95-CE shall not be available agreeing with the argument of the department. However, it was held that the said transaction would be undoubtly be covered under Rule 4(5)(a) and thus the demand was dropped.
