The Hon’ble (P&H) High Court in the case of Pr.C.I.T. vs ITAT Delhi Bench, New Delhi and anothers while dealing with the scope of power of Tribunal for grant of stay against the prosecution proceedings held that once
In the case of Vishal Garg & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., Punjab & Haryana HC instructed CBDT extend due date of Tax Audit cases to 31st October 2015 from existing 30th September 2015. Its not clear if the due date for non audit cases also been extended
Section 611 of the Companies Act, 1956 provided for payment of filing fees in accordance with Schedule X to that Act. There is no Schedule in the Companies Act, 2013 for ‘filing fees’. Accordingly, section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for payment of filing fees as prescribed by rules made under the Companies Act, 2013. Rule 12 and Table annexed to Companies (Registration Offices & Fees) Rules, 2014, prescribed the Fee.
Certain job work and production processes have been exempted from service tax. Carrying out an intermediate production process as job work in relation to –(a) agriculture, printing or textile processing; (b) cut and polished diamonds and gemstones; or plain and studded jewellery of gold and other precious metals, falling under Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Education sector is one of the most important sectors in our country. Service tax has become an important source of revenue collection for Indian Government. Since all the services are taxable w.e.f. 01.07.2012 except services covered under Negative List
The respondent was engaged in manufacture of cables and it entered into a contract with customer for supply of such cables & incorporated price variation clause in the agreement entered between them. The respondent paid duty provisionally at the time of removal of goods from the factory
Delhi High Court held In the case of Oracle Systems Corporation vs. ADIT that it is clear that when a regular assessment is completed in terms of Section 143(3), a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed upon a proper application of mind.
A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),
Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)- there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and further observed that the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding.
