Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)
CIT vs. Raval Tiles (Bombay High Court) Where the Tribunal did not pass an order on the appeal despite considerable delay and instead fixed the matter repeatedly for ‘clarifications’ and thereafter closed the matter for orders on the basis of written submissions and without hearing the assessee, HELD the procedure followed by the Tribunal was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
M/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Mumbai (ITAT MUMBAI)] The words in relation to in s. 14A mean a dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure and the exempt income. To determine whether there is such a connection, one has to see the object with which the expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is incurred mainly to earn taxable income and the tax-free income is incidental, there is no such connection and s. 14A does not apply. The onus is on the AO to establish that there is a dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure and the exempt income;
CIT vs. Sarabhai Holdings (Supreme Court) – Income Tax – Penalty – law permits the contracting parties to lawfully change their stipulations – What is material in the tax jurisprudence is the evasion of tax, not the beneficial lawful adjustment therefor . In the commercial world, the parties are always free to vary the terms of contract and, therefore, the assessee and the vendee had no legal impediment in modifying the terms of their contract. Merely because by Resolution the assessee agreed to defer the payment of interest, would not mean that it tried to evade tax.
The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide Notification No.36/2001 – Customs (N.T.), dated, the 3rd August, 2001 (S.O.748 (E), dated, the 3rd August, 2001) and was last amended vide Notification No. 113/2008-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 16th October, 2008 (S.O. 2459 (E) dated 16th October, 2008).
The framework for SLB was specified vide circular no. MRD/DoP/SE/Dep/Cir- 14 /2007 dated December 20, 2007. SLB was operationalised with effect from April 21, 2008.
Para 2 (II) of Policy Circular No. 12 (RE-08)/2004-09 dated 27.06.08 and Para 2 (II) of Policy Circular No. 13 (RE-08)/2004-09 dated 30.06.08 shall be amended to read as under.
IT is turning out to be a double whammy of sorts for companies that have taken a hit on account of mark-to-market (MTM) losses due to their exposure to forex derivatives. These companies may find it difficult to convince the income tax (I-T) department to allow MTM losses as deduction. Sources in the I-T department pointed out that there are no specific provisions in the Income Tax Act dealing with this issue. Moreover, there are no precedents or case laws that clearly define the treatment of losses incurred by companies.
Adopt an animal by paying for its upkeep at the Nandankanan Zoological park and get relaxation in income tax here. The adopters will get the benefit under Section 80G of the Indian Income Tax Act, zoo director Ajit Patnaik told reporters on Friday at the launch of the programme to boost the park’s conservation programme.
The amendments have been made after representations from entities requested Sebi to bring about further clarity on the amendment (made on April 8) where the promoter of a listed company is a listed or an unlisted entity. A Sebi release said, “If the promoter is a listed entity, its directors —other than the independent directors, its employees, or its nominees — shall be deemed to be related to it.” But, “if the promoter is an unlisted entity, its directors, employees or nominees shall be deemed to be related to it.”
