SRF Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITAT Delhi) In the present case it is seen that the liability was discharged by way of issuance of shares. When the assessee issues shares the assessee does not incur any expenditure as the assessee is not to make any payment legally towards shares issued. The shares cannot be equated with debentures, which is purely by way of loan and the same are required to be repaid on maturity.
Before answering the first question viz., as to whether the interest income of the assessee received from its corporate members on the investments of surplus funds as Fixed Deposits or Debentures etc., is exempted from tax on the concept of Mutuality, it will be worthwhile to refer to the principles laid down on the Doctrine of Mutuality in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as some of the High Courts.
However, in the impugned case there is no material on record to suggest or to hold that any sincere attempt was made by the Revenue to make the service through normal mode. For the reasons discussed above, the decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad & Ors. Vs. CIT (supra) will have square application to the present case and relying on the decision in the case of M/s Ganeshi Lai & Sons (supra), it cannot be held that service of notice by affixture in the present case was a valid service.
An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of,
As a consequence of the amendments introduced by the 2007 Act, an application which abates for no fault of the applicant would, under section 245HA(2) revert back to the IT Authorities as if no application had, in the first place, been made under section 245C to the Settlement Commission. As inserted by the 2007 Act, Section 245HA(3) of the Act further provides that where an application so reverts to the IT Authorities upon abatement,
Medico-legal reports cannot be refused under the RTI Act, the CIC has held saying unlike normal medical cases, they are not prepared at the instance of the patient but are legal requirement.“Medico legal cases (MLCs) are indeed legal requirements in criminal cases and not prepared at the instance of the patient but to record injuries inflicted on a person, to be used by courts in criminal proceedings and hence are not held in fiduciary relation with the patient and that refusal of information under Section 8(1)(e) is unsustainable,” Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit said.
Association of the concern/any partner/proprietor with Public Sector Banks as Concurrent / internal / income and expenditure or revenue auditor/ stock auditor/ auditor of borrowers accounts etc. (other than as Statutory Bank Branch Auditors and Central Statutory Auditors).
The Delhi-based franchise of audit firm PricewaterhouseCoopers today approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against it by the government in the aftermath of Satyam scam. It pleaded before the court that the government proceedings were illegal as they have no connection with the Bangalore-based franchise which had audited Satyam accounts.
The Amnesty Scheme is open for the period from 1st August, 2009 to 31st March, 2010 and is called “Profession tax Enrollment Incentive scheme 2009”.
The assessee, a partner in a firm, received ‘share of profit’ and ‘salary’ from the firm. While the ‘share of profit’ was exempt u/s 10(2A), the ‘salary’ was taxable as business income u/s 28 (v). The assessee claimed deduction for business expenditure incurred by him. The AO held that as the assessee had exempt income, s. 14A applied and a part of the expenditure had to be disallowed.
