Bonus cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of the expression salary as defined in Clause (h) of Rule 2. Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 4 contain a clear indication that the expression salary takes in only periodical payments made by the employer to the employee during a year by way of remuneration.
Being a resident of Korea, appellant is governed by the Income-tax Laws applicable to the class of assessees as that of the appellant as prevalent in Korea. Therefore, it has a tax identity in Korea. In addition thereto, appellant has submitted to the jurisdiction of Indian Taxing Authorities by furnishing return of income and, thereby, acknowledged that it has also a tax identity in India.
The Bombay high court in the case of Niranjani Roshan Rao V/S. Roshan Mark Pinto, in Family Court Appeal No. 124 of 2013 has held that a Hindu married to a non-Hindu in accordance with Hindu rituals cannot seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
In case of private assessee, the Commissioner will refer the matter to an officer to collect the material or Chartered Accountant for the purpose of audit. Thus, for the purpose of audit, the material can be collected either by the officer authorized by the Commissioner or by the Auditor himself. But, audit will be performed only by the Chartered Accountant.
The Andhra Pradesh HC has held in the case Shri M. Jaffer Saheb (Decd.) Vs. CIT that interest granted under Section 244A of the Act on income tax refund is chargeable to tax on accrual basis and has to be spread over the respective years for which interest is being granted.
From the record, it appears that originally, the dispute was between Accountant and Judicial Members of the Tribunal and it was not functioning. So, adjournment was sought by the petitioner, but the same was refused. However, on 06.03.2013, the case of the petitioner was decided in favour of the assessee in his presence.
By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal specifically when both the appellate authorities have given concurrent findings. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
If the assessee was entitled to make payment within the grace period and if within that grace period, its employer contributions have been deposited by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee has not deposited the amount with the department within the due date as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act
In this case only interest of Rs 2,96,731/- was paid on funds utilized for making investments on which exempted income was receivable. Further it was observed that in respect of investment of Rs. 6,07,775,000/- made in subsidiary companies , they are attributable to commercial expediency, because as per submission made by the assessee,
