As far as trade advances are concerned, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of section. 194. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) collected the details of advances categorized into trade advances and processing charges. Though he restricted the applicability of TDS provisions only to cash advances,
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of supply of LPG to its customers. It supplied the LPG cylinders to its customers on lease basis and collected security deposits. The customers can return the cylinders and take back the security deposits. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the customers have returned the cylinders and taken back the security deposits.
• Applicant should be a Partnership Firm with minimum 2 partners. The allocation of branches to the auditors will be purely the prerogative of the Bank. The concurrent audit firm should furnish the name and qualification of the persons, who shall be conducting the audit before commencing audit assignment and such persons will have to continue audit for all the months
In terms of the Council decision dated 14 July, 2011, following guidelines for conversion of CA firms into LLPs and constitution of separate LLPs by the practicing Chartered Accountants have been finalized which are applicable for conversion of CA firms into LLPs or formation of new LLPs by the members in practice of the Institute subject to the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008 and Rules & Regulations framed there under:-
Ministry of New & Renewable Energy has made additions/amendments in the existing formats of Application, Annexures, check-lists and drafts of the Excise Duty Exemption Certificate (EDEC) and Concessional Customs Duty Certificate (CCDC).
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (TPG) provide internationally accepted guidance on the application of the arm‟s length principle set out in Article 9 of the OECD and UN Model Tax Conventions. While the OECD works on an ongoing basis to monitor and revise the TPG in order to continually improve the transfer pricing guidance available to taxpayers and tax administrations, it also recognises the growing need to address practical and administrative aspects of implementation of the TPG.
This document is such an interim draft. It contains two principal elements: (i) a proposed revision of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines; and (ii) a proposed revision of the Annex to Chapter VI containing examples illustrating the application of the provisions of the revised text of Chapter VI.
Working Party No. 6 of the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs has released a discussion draft on safe harbours as part of its project to improve the administrative aspects of transfer pricing. This project started with a survey of the transfer pricing simplification measures in existence in OECD and non-OECD countries and led WP6 to review the current guidance on safe harbours in Chapter IV of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations (TPG).
In this case as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had called for the particulars regarding various items of income going into the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, for which the assessee had given the requisite details and particulars. Now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to hold that the very same items of receipt has to be excluded in computing relief under section 80HHC. In other words, the Assessing Officer, on a reappraisal of the very same details, which was called for by him and furnished by the assessee, would like to come to a different conclusion. This clearly tantamounts to reopening is merely on a change of opinion.
While scrutinizing the balance sheet of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- from M/s. Third Eye Qualitative Researchers Pvt. Ltd. of which she is a director having substantial interest. Accordingly, the said loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- was added as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The AO sought explanation u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1. The assessee furnished detailed reply dt. 6.3.2009. The explanation of the assessee was rejected by AO who levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,20,310/-.
