The language of section 14A includes that AO must record a satisfaction if he was unsatisfied with any incorrect claim of the assessee. If he failed to record such a finding then it cannot be said that he rightly invoked provision of section 14A.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further states Section 124 deals with confiscation of goods and penalty and does not deal with payment of import duty. No doubt, such a payment of import duty becomes payable by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 125 but only when condition stipulated in the said provision is fulfilled
In the case of DTH services, the only element involved in the transaction is Service and therefore the amount collected from the subscribers is liable for service tax. Since STBs are provided as a part of rendering services, no element of sale/transfer of right to use is involved in the transaction, to attract VAT/Sales Tax.
Many NGOs and Charitable Organizations in India have expressed desire to support relief and rehabilitation work for the benefit of earthquake affected people in Nepal. While participation of such NGOs and Charitable Organizations in relief operations is encouraged, it is also necessary to ensure that the funds utilized for the purpose are not misused and are channelized in the desirable manner only. These NGOs are also seeking approval from Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to exempt from tax the funds applied by them outside India (i.e., Nepal) u/s 1 1(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961(‘Act’).
A.O. was not convinced by the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to share capital received from six applicants and a sum of Rs.24 lacs was added u/s 68 of the Act. Appeal filed with CIT was rejected on the ground of assessee inability to explain the identity
Held that it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. Since the petitioner has already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in the midst of hearing of appeal
Assessee had given the loan to the associate enterprise in U.S.D. and in such a situation when the transaction was in foreign currency, and the transaction was an international transactions, then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to international transactions.
Held that, Prima facie, it appears that revenue’s argument is at loggerheads with the notification. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Niphad Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CEE, 2014 (300) E.L.T. 66 (Bom.) submitted by the appellant.
The award was not for any services rendered but in the nature of testimonial and expression of recognition by an institution of eminence of a person in the field of Journalism. The testimonial paid to any professional or any person as a token of esteem and regard for his ability or qualities
Revenue contended that Tribunal has no authority to extend the period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of stay in view of third proviso to section 254(2A). As 365 days would expire on 30.03.2015
