The assessee has shown long term capital gains and short term capital gains on buying and selling of shares and mutual funds, but, the revenue treated the same as business income based on the claim of the assessee in AY 2004-05 as trading activity of the said transactions. The only dispute between the assessee and revenue is that whether the assessee’s claim of treating the income arising out of selling and buying of shares out of the capital gains is correct or treating the said income is a trading activity as held by the revenue based on the decision in AY 2004-05 is correct.
It has been observed by the AO that waiver of ‘term loan’ is not trading liability, expenditure or loss as envisaged under section 41(1) of the Act. In other words, he has not invoked the provision of section 41(1) of the Act but treated the waiver of principle of amount of ‘term loan’ chargeable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’
In this judgment HC held that CBDT’s Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 applies to appeal filed before the issue of instruction also and all appeal pending on the date of instruction before High Court in which tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits of Rs. 10 Lakh for filing appeal by Income Tax Department can be held as non Maintainable. High Court has held as follows:-
National Legal Mission to Reduce Average Pendency Time from 15 Years to 3 Years National Litigation Policy Document Released The Centre has formulated a National Litigation Policy to reduce the cases pending in various courts in India under the National Legal Mission to reduce average pendency time from 15 years to 3 years. This was […]
The levy of interest is on the actual amount, which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax from the due date. The interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly.
In Notification No. 98 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 23.02.2012, the Subject heading at the top was mentioned as Permission for export of non-basmati rice through Land Custom Stations (LCS) on Indo-Bangladesh and Indo-Nepal border. The contents of the notification, however, covered some other issues in addition to export through Land Custom Stations (LCS). Hence the Subject of the notification was not an accurate description of the contents. To avoid any chance of mis-interpretation, it is decided to amend the Subject to read as Re-notification of Sl. No. 45 A of Chapter 10 of ITC(HS) Classification of export & import items for export of non-basmati rice.
NBFCs-ND-SI are advised to follow the Guidelines which inter alia, stipulate that individual cases of frauds involving amount less than Rs. 25 lakhs shall be reported to the respective Regional Offices(ROs) of DNBS in whose jurisdiction registered office of the company is located whereas individual cases of frauds involving amount of Rs. 25 lakhs and above may be reported to Frauds Monitoring Cell, Department of Banking Supervision, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, World Trade Centre, Centre -1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005.
Please refer to paragraph 3 on ‘BC Model’ of our circular DBOD.No.BL.BC.43/ 22.01.009/2010-11 dated September 28, 2010 on the above subject wherein it is stated that while a BC can be a BC for more than one bank, at the point of customer interface, a retail outlet or a sub-agent of a BC shall represent and provide banking services of only one bank.
Some enquiries have been initiated by the departmental agencies seeking to demand duty on such articles of jewellery which are packed in boxes, pouches etc. bearing a trade name or brand name or mark. References have since been received from the Trade requesting for providing clarity on levy of excise duty on jewellery sold under a Brand name. The industry has drawn attention to condition no, 8 of notification no.5/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 which provides that the exemption shall not be applicable to articles of jewellery of heading no 7113 on which brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself. It has been argued that accordingly only such jewellery where brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself should attract excise duty and duty should not be charged on the articles which do not themselves bear such marking but which are packed in a jewellery box or pouch bearing a trade name or brand name or in whose case, the warranty card or certificate of quality issued at the time of sale bears a trade name or brand name.
The taxpayer contended that the AO may invoke provisions of the Section 14A of the Act only after conducting necessary enquiries into the factual aspects. However, the Chennai Tribunal held that even in a case where the taxpayer claims that no expenditure was incurred in relation with the exempt income, the statute had provided for a presumptive expenditure which has to be disallowed by force of the statute. It means that even in a case where no expenditure is stated to have been incurred, the AO had to apply Rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 14A of the Act substitutes the requirement of factual evidence and the question of enquiry does not arise.
