The Senior Counsel argued at length, whether such non compete right constitute is a right in rem or otherwise, is a matter to be decided by an appropriate higher judicial forum. In the instant proceedings, we cannot import the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smifs (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that goodwill was an intangible asset and eligible for depreciation.
The Income Tax department has decided to name and shame chronic tax defaulters by publicising their names and addresses. It is in the process of finalising the procedures of compiling the names and cases pertaining to habitual tax dodgers and subsequently uploading them on its website. “The department would upload the names of such defaulters […]
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the
Notification No. 30/2013 – Income Tax Central Government hereby notifies that where the variation between the arm’s length price determined under section 92C and the price at which the international transaction or specified domestic transaction has actually been undertaken does not exceed one per cent of the latter for wholesale traders and three per cent of the latter in all other cases
In this case, the appellants had Calculated and paid the entire amount of credit with interest and on finding that there was a short-fall in payment, the proviso of Sec.73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 would come into play and, therefore, the concerned Central Excise Officer should have informed the assessee instead of issuing show-cause notice. Though the Revenue had one year time for issue of show-cause notice, instead of intimating the appellants who would have been willing to deposit the amount without any notice, they have issued show-cause notice in this case. The appellant was not disputing the merit of the stand taken by the revenue. Show-cause notice has been issued which in accordance with the provisions of Sec.73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, need not have been issued at all.
Appellants had procured iron ores during the period April 2007 to March, 2009, which were used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron. In bringing the said iron ores, which were used as input, the appellants had paid service tax on GTA services. Consequently, they had availed cenvat credit on the amount of service tax paid on GTA service as the same satisfies the definition of input service prescribed under Section 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of manufacture of sponge iron, the said iron ore was subjected to the process of screening and after completion of the said process, iron ore fines were generated.
Vide stay order No.ST/S/177/12-Cus dated 8.2.2012 the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 30 lakh. Subsequently, the matter came up for ascertaining compliance and as the appellant expressed his desire to file modification application, the matter was adjourned and listed on 20.7.2012.
According to statistics of Supreme Court; there are over 40 lakh pending cases of cheque bounce in the country. Lack of adequate knowledge has brought most of people in the situation of losing money. Here are some of the remedies a person can opt for while dealing with issues pertaining to return of cheque:
It is true that as per the agreement dated 13.9.1991, the assessee company was obliged to make payment for godown space which the assessee committed to hire from M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd irrespective of whether such godowns utilised by the assessee or not. However, it is a matter of considerable importance that M/s. Coastal Roadways Ltd. never owned or possessed such godowns though so falsely claimed in the agreement dated 13.9.1991. More importantly during the entire period between 1.9.1991 to 31.3.1992, M/s. Coastal Roadways ltd. had not even hired the godown from any other source.
In the present case, the payment to the actual beneficiary is made by the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata and not by the Dy FA and CAO of Metro Railways Kolkata. No doubt, the tax deduction obligations are on the person who makes payment to the beneficiary, and it was an undisputed position that the payment for land acquisition was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this matter, Hon’ble Court also observed that the tax deduction obligation are on the person who “had money in his possession and was responsible for making the payment of that income to the assessee (i.e. actual beneficiary of compensation in this case).” It is important to bear in mind the fact that the assessee is this case was the person receiving the compensation in his own right and not in any fiduciary capacity. Therefore, even going by this principle, the tax deduction liability is on the Competent Authority of Metro Railways Kolkata who makes the payment to the person receiving compensation.
