Prakash Leasing Ltd. v. DCIT – The lease rentals is not the real income of the assessee. The lease rental consists of financing charge as well as capital recovery. The amount received towards capital recovery constitute the capital expenditure, whereas the financing charge represents the revenue receipt, which is the real income. It is as per the Accounting Standards prescribed by the ICAI. Therefore, the assessee under the Act has to offer to tax only the real income and not the total receipt. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act on the capital recovery.
Merely because the vehicles were used by the lessees in their business, the assessee cannot be denied the depreciation @ 40%. In fact, it is not in dispute that in respect of all these vehicles, the assessee has acknowledged the receipt of lease rent and has shown the same in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he is claiming depreciation. If the authorities were of the view that the assessee has failed to prove his ownership over those vehicles, then, if depreciation is to be disallowed then they also should not have taken that lease rental agreement for the purpose of making the assessment. Under these circumstances, it is also not in dispute that for the subsequent years, the assessee had been granted the benefit of depreciation. Therefore, the order to be passed by the authorities should be consistent.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in granting conditional stay. As declared in the open court, assessee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- on or before 15th March 2012 and with regard to the balance outstanding demand assessee should furnish proper surety to the Assessing Officer. The Registry is directed to post the appeal for final hearing on 23rd April 2012. Since the date is announced in the open court the issuance of notice to the parties is dispensed with.
In the case on hand it is to be noticed that it is a case of income escaping the assessment. It may not be a tax of avoidance but it would be a case of a return, which is filed with all the material escaping the attention of the Assessing Authority.
Company Secretaries Examinations December, 2011 Result Would Be Declared On 25th February, 2012 At 11.00 A.M. The Results Alongwith Individual Candidate’s Subjectwise Break-Up Of Marks Will Be Available On The Institute’s Website.
In our considered view, therefore, on the facts of the present case wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA(2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
There has been a lot of emphasis in the orders of the authorities below, as indeed in learned Departmental Representative’s arguments before us, about the scope of assessee’s obligations to deduct tax at source under section 194J. However, having regard to the fact that we are in seisin of the limited question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), we see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. As far as this appeal is concerned, all these things issues regarding tax deduction at source obligations will be relevant only if one is to come to the conclusion that section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked in respect of the payments in question.
The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals. The sales shown in the Profit & Loss Accounts were Rs. 3,15,85,478/- and against that purchases were shown as Rs. 93,31,117/- on which gross profit of Rs. 7.95% was declared. The assessee was required to submit month-wise details of sales and purchases according to which the total sales were reported at Rs. 3,22,81,924/- and purchases were reported at Rs. 3,04,17,709/-. Thus, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a difference of Rs. 6,96,447/- in the sales and Rs. 10, 86,596/- in the purchases.
India had signed the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters on 26th January, 2012. The Convention has been ratified by India by depositing the Instrument of Ratification as on 21st February, 2012. By this, India has become the first non-OECD, non-Council of Europe country to become a party to the Convention as amended by the 2010 Protocol
The provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 relating to regulation of combinations and the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combination) Regulation, 2011 (“Combination Regulations”) have been in force with effect from 1st June, 2011. The Competition Commission of India, after gaining experience of implementation of the Combination Regulations for almost nine months, has amended the Regulations with a view to provide relief to the corporate entities from making filings for combinations which are unlikely to raise adverse competition concerns, reduce their compliance requirements, make filings simpler and to move towards certainty in the application of the Act and the Regulations.
