he Goods and Services Tax, which was implemented from July 1, subsumes all the indirect taxes that businesses earlier paid the Centre and states separately, with the aim of creating a common market. It involved a complete overhaul of the tax filing system.
Addition on account of discount extended to prepaid distributors Third proviso to section 194H will get attracted only when the nature of payment is “commission or brokerage”. Parties before us agree that majorly the distribution of products by BSNL and MTNL takes place through Public Call Office franchisees since this was an infrastructure existing with […]
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.
A Chartered Engineer shall act only in the domain of his/her competence for issuance of nexus certification under EPCG Scheme. Public Notice No. 40/2015-2020
The Income Tax Act, in particular Section 90 thereof, does not speak of the concept of a PE. This is a creation only of the DTAA. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the DTAA, the business income of companies which are incorporated in the US will be taxable only in the US, unless it is found that they were PEs in India
In the present case, the petitioner has not made any representation under Section 13 (13-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the bank and has approached this Court by-passing statutory mechanism which has been disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case of Devi Ispat Limited and another Vs. State Bank of India and other (2014) 5 SCC 762.
Court is satisfied that no error was committed by the ITAT in holding that the value declared in the tax return filed by the Assessees under WTA cannot be taken to be the cost of acquisition in the hands of the Assessees.
The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21-12-2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
As per provisions of the Cost Audit Report Rules that are in force from time-to-time, a cost auditor is required to comment on the scope and performance of internal audit of cost records. Hence it would tend to mitigate against the proper and dispassionate discharge of his duties if he was also the internal auditor of the company for the same period for which he is conducting the cost audit.
