"12 August 2015" Archive - Page 2

Amount received as a Restrictive Covenant is a Capital Receipt but taxable w.e.f. 1.4.2003

CIT Vs Bisleri Sales Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003. ...

Read More

Mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals under Service Tax, Excise and Customs – The Dilemma Continues

Whether mandatory pre-deposit provision under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944[as applicable for Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and for Customs vide Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962] would be applicable to the cases where the lis commenced prior to August 6, 2014?...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

In case of rejection of books, estimation of gross profit based on past history justified

CIT Vs M/s Hind Agro Industries (ITAT Chandigarh)

CIT vs. M/s Hind Agro Industries (ITAT Chandigarh) The assessee pleaded since it is not feasible to maintain stock register, therefore books should not be rejected CIT (A) upheld rejection of books , but considered G.P. rate taken by A.O. of previous year...

Read More

Disallowance of expenditure for non deduction of tax at source – Implications and Explanations

Disallowance of expenditure for deduction of tax at source but non payment of the same on or before the due date of filing of return of income: Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of aforesaid section has been amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 to provide that disallowance under the said sub-clause will be attracted,...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Justice Has a Mountain to Climb, Of 31.3 Million Pending Cases

Constitution Of India reflects the quest and aspiration of the mankind for justice when its Preamble speaks of justice in all its forms: social, economic and political. Those who have suffered physically, mentally or economically, approach the Courts, with great hope, for redressal of their grievances believing that one day or the other, ...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Sec. 271AAA-No penalty where demand paid before penalty order

DCIT Vs M/s. Tapadia & Kasliwal Associates (ITAT Pune)

It was held that wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA (2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before fi...

Read More

CBI Register case against Custom’s Commissioner for causing loss of Rs. 74.61 crore to Government

The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi; the then Dy. Commissioner, ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and a private person of Delhi on the allegations of showing favour to private companies in the release of duty drawback from ICD, Tughlakabad, Delhi and ICD, Patparganj, Del...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Notification No. 63/2015 – Income Tax Dated 12/8/2015

Notification No. 63/2015 - Income Tax 12/08/2015

Notification No. 63/2015 - Income Tax S.O. 2192(E). —Whereas, an agreement (hereinafter referred to as the said agreement) between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of San Marino, for the exchange of intbrmation with respect to taxes was signed at Rome, on the 19th day of December, 2013...

Read More

Royalty pad by distributor to music producer for copyright use is not an additional consideration to assessee a job worker

M/s K.R.C.D (I) P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court)

Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K.R.C.D Pvt. Ltd. held that the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer to some other person for use of any copyright is not includible in the assessable value of the final goods cleared from the factory of job worker as the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer do not flow any additional con...

Read More

Restriction to use trade mark beyond a physical area limit does not automatically make it usable within the allowed area if same belongs to other person- SC

Kali Aerated Water Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai (Supreme Court)

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Kali Aerated Water Works held that the restricted right to use of any trade mark and trade name does not make it use as use of brand name belonging to others since the assessee has right to use though restricted as mutually agreed between some parties. ...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

September 2021