Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Matter remanded if additions are made by TPO without working capital adjustments

October 21, 2012 1607 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee made a claim for working capital adjustment before the TPO. The TPO made a detailed analysis exhibiting how such an adjustment is to be granted. According to the assessee, the TPO made reference to Rule 10B(3) demonstrating comparability adjustment. On the strength of this Rule, the TPO opined that Indian transfer pricing provisions prescribed only reasonable accurate adjustment. He also pointed out that thereafter the TPO made reference to OECD Commentary and also the judicial precedents on comparability adjustment.

Carry forward business losses & depreciation cannot be set off against profits of an undertaking while working out claim u/s. 10B

October 21, 2012 3582 Views 0 comment Print

Since the provisions of section 10A and 10B are similar in nature and as the jurisdictional High Court decided the issue while considering the provisions of section 10B also respectfully following the above, we uphold the contention of assessee that carry forward business losses and depreciation cannot be set off to the profits of the undertaking while working the claim u/s 10B. Therefore, AO is directed to do the needful in light of the above principles laid down.

AO Can not change his opinion regarding need for special Audit unless new fact emerges

October 21, 2012 1841 Views 0 comment Print

It is necessary to examine the question whether it is open to the Assessing Officer, having already formed an opinion that no special audit was necessary, and not having communicated the same to the petitioner, to change his mind and form an opinion subsequently that a special audit is necessary having regard to the complexities of the accounts and the protection of the interests of the revenue.

If Trust conducts marathon in commercial manner, then it cannot be said to be existing only for charitable purposes

October 21, 2012 2098 Views 0 comment Print

The voluntary contribution received by a trust created only for charitable or religious purposes is to be deemed as income u/s. 11 of the Act. In case some of the objects of the trust are charitable and some of the objects can be termed as non charitable then such a trust will not be covered u/s. 12 because then it is not a trust created wholly for charitable purposes.

No Capital gain tax firm if it doesn’t distribute any capital asset to retiring partners

October 21, 2012 10299 Views 0 comment Print

Allocation of assets of the firm to the retiring partners is the basis for invocation of provisions of Section 45(4). In the case under consideration, neither there was any dissolution nor other event took place that had an effect of allocation of exclusive interest in any capital asset to the retiring partners. In these circumstances, FAA was justified in holding that conditions of Section 45(4) were not fulfilled. In our opinion the firm or the continuing partners were not liable to be taxed under the head ‘capital gains’,

Request of director for postponement of board meeting must be treated as leave of absence & not vacation of office

October 21, 2012 5464 Views 0 comment Print

It is a fact that the company holds three board meetings consecutively on March 31, 2011, June 9, 2011 and September 29, 2011. It is also a fact that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the board meeting dated March 31, 2011. Even otherwise, the petitioner has requested the company to postpone the meeting dated March 31, 2011 to April 2, 2011, at 11.00 a.m.

Vicarious liability of director of a private company for ‘tax due’ u/s. 179(1) from it does not extend to interest & penalty

October 21, 2012 12887 Views 0 comment Print

Section 179(1) provides for a vicarious liability of the director of a public company for payment of tax dues which cannot be recovered from the company. However, such liability could be avoided if the director proves that the non recovery cannot be attributed to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company.

If DRP dismissed objections filed by assessee in a summary manner without proper application of mind, matter needed reconsideration

October 21, 2012 1245 Views 0 comment Print

The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.

Mere non-production of donor would not attract penalty for concealment if Gift disclosed in Return

October 20, 2012 1490 Views 0 comment Print

Assessee has duly disclosed the gifts and there was no concealment in this regard. Only the assessee has failed to produce the alleged donor that the penalty has been imposed. I further find that section 271(1(c) of the Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

No payment required in cash where tax already deposited by utilizing CENVAT Credit

October 20, 2012 2383 Views 0 comment Print

Appellant have already paid service tax from their Modvat credit, the deposit of the service tax collected from the buyers would amount to double payment. It may be noted that the proceedings are for confirmation of demand in terms of section 73A of the Finance Act which relates to the tax collected by an assessee from the buyers, which is not required to be collected.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031