In what could be a breather to India Inc, the corporate affairs ministry is proposing diluting norms for rotation of auditors and audit firms for companies in the new Companies Bill. The bill will be taken up for consideration in Parliament in the ongoing Budget session.
The fact that a surplus may incidentally arise from the activities of the trust, after meeting the expenditure incurred for conducting educational activities, would not disentitle the trust of the benefit of the provisions of Section 10(23C).
It was held that if technical services provided off-shore do not require any deduction of tax at source. In the . instant case, the services have been rendered off-shore though these are utilized in India and as per the; decision of the jurisdictional High Court, no TD5 was required to be made. It is true that through e-commerce, the services can be rendered in India without any geographical boundary but no facts have been put before us to establish that Sun Singapore provided such services in India When the income of the recipients not taxable in India then the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source. Hence, it is held that the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the IT Act.
In order to apply the provisions of section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee; the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.
Till and until both the credit earned and the product on which the credit is earned are lawfully utilized, it cannot be said that the credit has been lawfully and completely utilized; of course, the utilization of credit and utilization of input may not necessarily be in relation to one and the same final product; it can be in relation to two different dutiable final products.
Where the assessee was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order which was “administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation” also could not be said to be the reasons as envisaged in Section 127(1).
Even if there is any lacuna in the procedure followed by the Assessing Authority while rejecting the objections raised by the assessee against the notices issued under sections 147 and 148(1), it is not as if the assessee is left in lurch and deprived of its right from raising such issue, and it is open to the assessee to challenge the same, even at the time of questioning the final assessment orders.
The fact that the Agent has deducted tax under section 195 will not be a bar to proceed and pass an order under section 163 against the agent
Despite the clear objective behind enacting SARFAESI Act, 2002, while implementing the provisions of the Act, many complications have arisen and the Hon’ble Courts have cleared some complications making a good balance between the interests of the borrowers and the objective of Act to reduce the alarming levels of Non-performing Assets (NPA). Courts have dealt with the issue of limitation to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and according me, it is the wonderful interpretation by Courts in giving the borrower a right to challenge the Bank’s action on all measures pursuant to section 13 (4) of the Act.
In a recent decision, in the case of CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (Delhi High Court) [ITA 552/2005] dated 29 November, 2010 , the Delhi High Court in the context of loans given by a Non-Banking Financial Company (“NBFC”) held that in a scenario where interest on Non Performing Assets (“NPA”) was doubtful of recovery due to adverse financial circumstances of the borrower, it was legitimate move to infer that interest income had not accrued and was therefore not exigible to tax, irrespective of the fact that assessee followed mercantile system of accounting.
