Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that It is expected of from Assessing Officer, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts
In the present case, it is not in doubt that the payment of tax made by resident/ depositor is in excess and the department chooses to refund the excess payment of tax to the depositor. We have held the interest requires to be paid on such refunds. The catechize is from what date interest is payable, since the present case does not fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 244A of the Act.
In the case of CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat SC has held that the respondent-trust is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the respondent-trust and thereby, it would be eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
For grant of deduction u/s 54F in case of construction of a residential house, the condition is that the assessee has within a period of three years after the date of transfer of long term asset, constructed a residential house.
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally.
A bare reading of section 54F clearly shows that the assessee is entitled for exemption in case he / she constructs a residential house within a period of three years after the sale of the capital asset. However, sub clause (4) of section 54F clearly says that the unutilized portion of the net sale consideration which is otherwise liable for capital gain tax shall be deposited in the capital gain account scheme within the period of due date for filing return of income u/s 139.
Recently In the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India (Firm) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that amount received from deposits from the public under different finance schemes cannot be treated as Income of the Assessee as Assessee is a mere custodian of the deposit.
The applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The applicant had in fact never filed any service tax returns and as such knowingly utilized the Government monies for his personal use.
AAR held that various factors have to be taken into account to decide a Fixed place PE which inter alia includes a right of disposal over the premises. No strait jacket formula applicable to all cases can be laid down.
CA Sandeep Kanoi As you are aware, it is mandatory for Pay and Accounts Office (PAO)/ District Treasury Office (DTO)/ Cheque Drawing and Disbursing Office (CDDO) (herein after called as AOs) to file Form No. 24G on monthly basis with in the prescribed time as per Income-tax Department Notification no. 41/2010 dated May 31, 2010. AOs to […]
