Ashish Kedia It seems the arrogance of the government simply refuses to die! Inspite of being witness to one of the largest mass movements over the last 4-5 days by the business community in recent time, the government seems to be in no mood to show any empathy. Octroi taxes have a respectable antiquity, being […]
Now condonation of delay for late filing of Form 8 and form 17 under the Companies Act, 1956, requires a petition to be filed with Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and earlier the same was required to be made to Company Law Board. The procedure for making the petition for condonation of delay under Section 141 of the Companies Act, 1956 is given below.
In the larger interest of public disclosure regarding steps taken by listed companies from Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) perspective, SEBI had mandated inclusion of BR Reports as part of the Annual Reports of listed companies. As per the SEBI Circular dated August 13, 2012, it is mandatory for top 100 listed companies, based on […]
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated that said decision of this Court was not carried in appeal on the ground that it involved tax effect lower than what is prescribed by the CBDT in circular dated 9.2.2011 permitting the Revenue to carry such appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Revenue was unable to point out any factual distinction between the two cases.
All Tax Appeals are allowed. Decisions of the Tribunal under challenge are reversed. In the earlier portion of the judgment, we had recorded that the Tribunal in all cases had proceeded only on this short basis without addressing other issues. We, therefore, place all these matters back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of other issues, if any, regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
The issue pertains to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). The revenue authorities had imposed penalty on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed. The Tribunal however, deleted such penalty. The Tribunal noted that tax liability against the assessee was confirmed on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228. The Tribunal noted that such decision was not available when the assessee filed the return. On such basis, the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the creditors, whereas the Revenue has allowed interest at the rate of 12% and has added back the difference of 3% interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. He submitted that the interest paid at the rate of 15% to two coparceners of the assessee-HUF could not be called excessive. The learned DR has relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act dated 18.12.2008 were that the assesseefirm is in the business of public work construction on contract basis. It was noted by the AO that the assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 59,93,911/- which according to him was in the nature of “penal expenditure”.
No. LAD-NRO/GN/2013-14/07/1005.– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board has established its Local Office at Kochi under the administrative control of its Southern Regional Office at Chennai.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government
