Sponsored
    Follow Us:

In a One Time Settlement of principal & interest, it cannot be assumed that assessee has paid the interest due

September 18, 2012 3919 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee has not produced any evidence to indicate the apportionment of the OTS amount of Rs.91 lacs towards principal and interest. It is obvious that a part of above amount was towards interest for the OTS amount was admittedly more than Rs.72 lacs (principal amount).

Format of Tax Residency Certificate to avail DTAA / Treaty benefit notified

September 17, 2012 125931 Views 7 comments Print

Notification No. 39/2012-Income Tax Government has now vide notification No. NOTIFICATION NO. 39/2012 [, DATED 17-9-2012 released the following forms which are applicable from 1st day of April, 2013 :- FORM No. 10FA – Application for Certificate of residence for the purposes of an agreement under section 90 and 90A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 FORM No. 10FB – Certificate of residence for the purposes of section 90 and 90A

Cost Inflation Index – Financial Year 2012-13

September 17, 2012 24816 Views 0 comment Print

Notification No. 38/2012-Income Tax S.O. 2 187(E):- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of the Explanation to section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes, number S.O.709 (E), dated the 20th August, 1998

Extended limitation period u/s. 73 is not invokable if existence of bona fide belief is proved

September 17, 2012 3134 Views 0 comment Print

In the show-cause notice it was conveyed that the assessee had not registered itself with a view to evading duty and that therefore larger period of limitation would be invoked. It may be that such issue of allegation was not in so many words denied by the assessee.

Allocation of quantity of Rough Marble and Travertine Blocks for import for Financial Year 2012-13.

September 17, 2012 325 Views 0 comment Print

This Trade Notice, before their cases can be considered for grant of import license. E Mails communicating discrepancy have already been sent to above firms.

Interest u/s. 234B/C not payable on deficit in advance tax because of retrospective amendment

September 17, 2012 5685 Views 0 comment Print

The question is as to whether interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act can be charged for default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of advance tax, respectively, where the payment of tax became due only because of the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 1(h) to s. 115JB (2) of the Act, the amendment having been made operative retrospectively. It was due to the filing of the revised statement of assessable income,

E-payment of Customs duty mandatory

September 17, 2012 2057 Views 0 comment Print

Notification No. 83/2012-Customs (N.T.) E-payment of Customs duty mandatory for Importers registered under Accredited Clients Programme & for Importers paying customs duty of one lakh rupees or more per bill of entry.

Section 194C – Supervising construction work not liable to TDS

September 17, 2012 26080 Views 0 comment Print

Engagement for professional service or services simplicter which do not involve contract for carrying out any work itself, or a contract for labour for carrying out such services, is not within the purview of section 194C as it exists.

Section 271D penalty cannot be imposed for business transactions in cash

September 17, 2012 5185 Views 0 comment Print

Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with ‘D’ for purchase of land on its behalf and development thereof by ‘D’. ‘D’ purchased land from farmers on behalf of the assessee through its agent ‘J’. In lieu of the consideration paid by ‘D’ for purchase of land, its account was credited by way of journal entries. ‘J’ had made payments in cash to the farmers in order to effect purchases.

CBDT cannot take away exemption granted by statute by issuing a circular

September 17, 2012 4446 Views 0 comment Print

The impugned circular issued by the Board came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court and it has struck down the circular holding that powers under section 119 would not empower the Board to issue clarification which would take away the exemption which has been granted by the statute. There was no reason to take a different view particularly when the decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be dismissed

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