Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: TDS credit can be claimed in the country in which the related income was offered to tax. Held: Assessee derived revenue from the grant of exclusive rights to Turner International India Private Limited (TIIPL’) in India to sell advertising on the products and to distribute […]
Akshay Khetter pal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Penalty u/s 112(a) of the Custom Act was sustainable as penalty was penal in nature and the payment made for discharge of punishment for violation of prohibited acts and/or restriction(s) imposed under the provisions of law, could not be considered as compensatory in natur and not allowable […]
E. K. RAJAN Vs Authorized Officer (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Since there was a failure on the part of the respondent to serve notice of not less than 15 days upon assessee, therefore, the notice of sale proposing to auction the property of the was bad in law and the consequent sale was liable to […]
Since AO had merely asked the assessee for filing information in respect of the grounds on which the case was selected and no meaningful enquiry had been carried out by the AO on the information filed by the assessee, therefore, revision under section 263 by CIT was justified.
When assessee collected the service tax from its customers and had not remitted the Government Exchequer, the same had to be disallowed u/s 43B.
Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Any amount retained by a toll collector while undertaking toll-collection activity did not attract service tax since the said activity did not constitute a service rendered by a commission agent and thus it did not fall within the purview of a ‘business […]
Assessee was neither entitled to deduction under section 80P(2Xd) nor under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income earned from investments with Cooperative Banks such interest income was to be assessed as income from other sources.
High Court favoured an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised.
When there was no clear documentary evidence to prove the identity of the assessee the burden of proof lies on him claiming the benefit of being the assessee.
When the assessee’s main dominant and prime objective was to promote the sports was not desire to earn profits but, object of promoting sports for Nation, it was clearly a charitable purpose. Assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11.
