Where the HUF was in existence during the relevant year and a partition took place later, for purposes of initiating reassessment proceedings for that year, it would not be necessary to issue notice to every member of the family – Lakshminarain Bhadani v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 594 (SC).
The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the view taken in Exts.P11 and P13 is illegal. Ext.P9 judgment has attained finality. In that judgment, it has been specifically found that Ext.P2 application was not pending. It was therefore that the petitioner sought restoration of Ext.P2.
Circular No. 777 dated 17th March 1999 issued by the CBDT makes it clear that such certificate cannot have retrospective effect. The reason put forth by the assessee that he had a bona fide belief, as for earlier financial years the Assessing Officer of the contractor allowed the assessee to credit or pay without deduction of tax at source did not find favour with the Tribunal on the ground that the Circular issued under Section 197 (1) of the Act cannot have retrospective effect.
In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action and put Sikri on the dock and he also admitted his fault, though he tried to shift the blame to his employee whose whereabouts were never known. Even in his bail application he had confessed to his role in the alleged irregularities and illegalities.
The appellant may have a very good case on merits and would possibly be able to establish in an appropriate proceeding that the respondent have acted in a fraudulent manner and defrauded him to Rs. 2 crore. However, in proceedings for winding up the company, the Court cannot adjudicate upon a bona fide disputed debt. It is well settled principle of company law that wherever there is a bona fide disputed debt, the petition for winding up of a company is not appropriate remedy to enforce the debt. In the circumstances, no fault is found with the order of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed.
Assessee is in the TT enabled services, whereas the said company Apex Knowledge Solutation Pvt. Ltd., is in the business of E-publishing which cannot be said to be in the same line of business. The functional differences are likely to affect the profit marking capacity of both the companies. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that this company is also to be excluded from the list of comparables.
Notice to company registered in Sikkim – A notice under section 148 can be validly issued on a company, if it is in respect of income which is stated to have arisen in India, even though the registered office of the company is situated in Sikkim – Alankar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2000] 244 ITR 31 (SC).
It is evident that all the services are essential in running the business of rendering the output service ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ which is exported. If that be so, all the services come within the purview of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which defines the input service.
CBDT has issued an instruction which contains the guidelines and manual on sharing of information among treaty partners. The manual deals with both inbound and outbound request for information.
Notification No. 7/2013 – Income Tax The Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Malaysia, desiring to conclude an Agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and with a view to promoting economic cooperation between the two countries, have agreed as follows:
