Surmounting all odds, Prema Jayakumar, daughter of a Mumbai-based autorickshaw driver, has topped the all India Chartered Accountancy (CA) examination. Residing in a crammed one-room chawl in suburban Malad with her parents and brother, the 24-year-old told on Tuesday she was ecstatic to have secured the first rank in the examination conducted in November 2012 […]
Companies Bill, 2012, after a very long journey and with many stumble blocks, has finally seen the light of day in Lok Sabha. After much speculation and eagerness on the subject, Lok Sabha finally approved the Bill on the night of 18th December, 2012.
In the instant case, what transferred by the assessee are the shares in the company and not the land or building or both. Assessee does not have full ownership on the flats which are owned by the company. The transfer of shares was never a part of the assessment of the Stamp duty Authorities of the State Government.
It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bonafide dispute, the court will not order for winding up. The principles in this regard are elucidated in Madhusudan Gordhandas (supra).
The Tribunal, upon detailed examination of the nature of relationship between the assessee and the transporter, came to the conclusion that this is not a case of sub-contract. The Tribunal noted that none of the responsibilities of the contractor vis-a-vis the execution of the work were fastened on the transporters.
On a perusal of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgement, I have found that the period of dispute involved in that case was prior to April 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, on a set of facts similar to the facts of the instant case, framed the following question of law
As regards the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more, the assessee has not substantiated his claim that the payments of Rs.20,000/- or more with regard to the purchases were made for Rs.20,000/- or less before the AO. It is also not on record whether such claim was actually made before the AO or not. With regard to the claim before the ld. CIT(A), all the vouchers are self made vouchers and without any authenticity of the name and complete address of the recipient. From the claim of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the payments are claimed to have been made on different hours on the same day and accordingly on different dates.
ITAT has committed an error in dismissing the appellant’s appeal merely by observing that while deciding the appeal of revenue the stand of the CIT (Appeal) has been upheld. We find that the appellant’s contention that the net profit at 2.5% could not have been applied by CIT (Appeal) was required to be decided by the ITAT and the appellant’s appeal could not have been dismissed summarily on the basis of the decision in revenue’s appeal without dealing with the appellant’s contention. It is evident from the order of ITAT that while deciding revenue’s appeal also the said question of applying of net profit rate at 2.5% was not dealt with by it.
The expenditure is incurred by the assessee not for generation of the scrap but for generation of the finished product. There is and cannot be any expenses which are incurred for generation of scrap. Scrap is bi-product of the manufacturing activity. Therefore, there are no expenses which could be excluded from the sale of scrap.
Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid by the job worker has already been considered by the Tribunal and in the case of Multi Organics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Order Nos. A/180-181/2010/SMB/C-IV, dated 31-3-2010]. It has been held that even though the job worker is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST and if he has not availed to exemption, the service tax credit would be admissible to the person who availed the services of job worker.
