The law stands very well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., (supra) that merely disallowing a claim of deduction raised by the assessee is not a ground to proceed u/s 271(1)(c). For penalty, it has to be either a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, concealment of income or at least the claim should have been proved to be a mala-fide one. In our considered opinion, the said eventualities do not exist in instant case. Therefore, the penalty in question does not hold ground.
As the members are aware, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) had vide its Order No. IRDA/NL/ORD/MPL/277/12/2011 dated 23rd December 2011 had directed the dismantling of the Indian Motor Third Party Insurance Pool (IMTPIP) with effect from 31st March 2012.
Please refer to our circular No. UBD.BPD.AD.CIR.No. 4/13.01.000/2011-12 dated November 24, 2011 on Interest Rates on Deposits held in FCNR(B) Accounts. In view of the prevailing market conditions, it has been decided that until further notice and with effect from the close of business in India as on May 4, 2012, the interest rates on FCNR(B) Deposits will be as under:
As you are aware, with a view to promote financial inclusion, a roadmap to provide banking services in every village with population above 2000 by March 31, 2012, was drawn up. Banks have covered 74, 199 (99.7 percent) out of 74,414 such villages.
Bhole Bhandari Charitable Trust v. CIT From the proviso attached to the section 293C of the Act, it is crystal clear that even if any Income-tax Authority wants to withdraw approval, he shall issue a show-cause notice against the proposed withdrawal to the assessee concerned and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall withdraw approval after recording reasons for doing so.
The Finance Minister has introduced the Finance Bill, 2012 proposing, inter alia, taxation of services based on a negative list. This announcement involves a paradigm shift by moving away from taxation of specified description of services to a new system of taxation of all services except those specified in the negative list or otherwise exempted. An important key for its implementation is to identify the taxing jurisdiction for a service.
As far as difference in foreign exchange is concerned, it is to be computed based on straight formula. Similarly, depreciation could also be verified from details available on the record. Considering all these aspects, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Sec. 24 has been amended w.e.f. 01-04-2002. Before the amendment, various categories of expenditure like collection charges, insurance premium, ground rent, land revenue, etc., were allowable, but after the amendment, only two types of deductions are possible, namely, 30% of the total annual value and amount of interest paid for acquisition of property. No other deduction is possible and accordingly we hold that the amount of expenditure incurred on account of brokerage, professional consultancy, maintenance, etc., relating to the property is not allowable under the head ‘income from house property’.
Under the present system there are 88 exemption notifications. The need for exemptions is not obliterated with the introduction of negative list. While some existing exemptions have been built into the negative list, others, wherever necessary, have been retained as exemptions. In addition new exemptions are proposed to be introduced in the context of the negative list. For ease of reference and simplicity most of the exemptions are part of one single mega exemption notification (list of such proposed exemptions can be placed as Exhibit A2). In addition there are 9 more exemption notifications (list of such proposed exemptions is placed as Exhibit A3). The total number of exemption notifications, therefore, proposed to be issued in the new system would be only 10.
The Court upheld Section 48(5) of the MVAT Act, ruling that input tax credit cannot exceed tax actually deposited in the Government Treasury. It held that the provision is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.
