In the instant case, assessee a recognized trust invested its funds as per instructions of Government of India in various financial institutions and those institutions deducted tax at source from interest earned on fixed deposits. In order to claim refund of TDS erroneously deducted by the financial institutions, the assessee filed returns for relevant assessment years. The AO held that since said returns had been filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, they were to be treated as invalid returns and, thus, application for the TDS refunds was to be rejected. The CIT, however, refused to condone the delay in filing the returns on the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship as envisaged under section 119(2)(b). Contending that the stance taken by the respondent authorities is contrary to law, the petitioner-trust filed this instant writ petition for appropriate relief.
Not resorting to any populist measures, the Government has not touched the direct and indirect tax structures in principle in the Union Budget 2013- 14; neither has it touched the middle class. Some of the experts have felt that they were expecting something more miraculous in the Budget that could tackle the existing economic issues at hand.
Section 9A Of The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 – Quantitative Restrictions – Power Of Central Government To Impose – Notified Developing Countries For Purposes Of Section 9A NOTIFICATION NO. GSR 59(E) [F.NO.01/92/180/106/AM-11/PC-VI/PRA], DATED 31-1-2013 In pursuance of sub-section (4)(a) of section 9A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 […]
In order to be covered under section 22, it is sine qua non that the assessee must be the owner of the house property as per section 27 read with section 269UA(f). In the instant case, the assessee is not the owner of the property. It cannot also be considered as deemed owner of house property within the meaning of section 27 because it took property on lease for a period of three years. Since the assessee was neither the owner nor the deemed owner of the house property, applying the provisions of section 22, the annual value of such property could not have been charged to tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. As it was a case of simple subletting of property, not facilitating the carrying on of the assessee’s business in any manner, the rental income so realized by the assessee could not be considered as ‘Business income’. In such a situation, the same should be included under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for doing the needful accordingly.
It appears that nothing is available from the record that advances/loan without interest were ever given for business purposes. It was for the personal use of Director or family members and after obtaining the loan/advances, the borrower never made any effort to repay the loan amount nor did the assessee company made any effort to recover the said loan from the borrower. In fact assessee company allowed its Director and family members to use its funds for their personal benefits. This cannot be intention of the statute which allowing the payment interest on borrowed funds for business purpose under section 36 (1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the interest on borrowed funds can not allowed for a longer period even the funds are not being used for the business purpose.
The President of India has appointed Shri Hrishikesh Sharan, Chief Commissioner, Central Excise (Retd.) as Indirect Tax Ombudsman at Mumbai to hear grievances on Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax issues from the general public. Download Press Note on appointment of Indirect Tax Ombudsman
Undisputedly the office of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders is located in Delhi, over which the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The order under section 127 of the Act was passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax on 12.8.2011 w.e.f. 23.8.2011, which was passed after passing the assessment order and even after filing of the first appeal.
The informant herein was trying to experiment with an innovative way to have premier of its movie in India through DTH so as to have reach to maximum number of consumers/viewers at a premier show through DTH medium. The decision of the OP not to exhibit this movie or any other movie released before it was released to theatres, through DTH or any other technology prima facie has an effect of limiting the market of exhibition of films for the benefit of viewers at large in the territories under its control. The decision prima facie also seems to be restricting informant from taking advantage of technological development in the relevant industry at a timing of its choice. Such a decision of OP prima facie seems to be anti competitive as it deters a producer from providing to consumers an opportunity of watching premiere show in an economic manner in the comforts of his home. It also has the potential of adversely affecting the competition and depriving benefit to producers and consumers of newer technologies.
1. In the year 2009, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs amended Accounting Standard (AS) 11, The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates by inserting Paragraph 46. As per Paragraph 46, in respect of accounting periods commencing on or after 7th December, 2006 and ending on or before 31st March, 2011, at the option of […]
1 No.F.3(18)/Fin.(Rev-1)/2012-13/dsVI/265 30-Mar-13 Notification from Finance (Revenue-1) department. 1 No.F.3(15)/Fin.(Rev-1)/2012-13/dsVI/264 30-Mar-13 Notification from Finance (Revenue-1) department. 3 No.F.3(17)/Fin.(Rev-1)/2012-13/dsVI/263 30-Mar-13 Notification from Finance (Revenue-1) department.
