Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All High Courts

In absence of evidence to contrary, minutes of Board meetings would be proof of fact that directors had cleared misleading announcement made to Stock Exchange

June 16, 2012 747 Views 0 comment Print

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) may apply for a declaration of contravention of civil penalty provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, pecuniary penalty orders , compensation orders and orders disqualifying a person from managing corporations for a period . In proceedings in which declarations of contravention, pecuniary penalty orders and disqualification orders were sought, ASIC alleged that the defendants who are the present respondents had each breached his or her duty as a director or an officer of a listed public company. ASIC alleged, and the directors denied, that the directors had approved the company’s releasing to the Australian Stock Exchange an announcement that was misleading. The minutes of the board meeting, confirmed at a subsequent board meeting, recorded the tabling of a draft announcement and its approval by the board.

Limitation being a matter of procedure, only law that is applicable at the time of filing appeal, would apply

June 15, 2012 3591 Views 0 comment Print

The impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 could not have been issued under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. However, even if it is assumed that the impugned show cause notice was issued in exercise of the powers of revision under Section 74A of the DVAT Act, the period of limitation would be that which was in vogue when the said notice was issued. The period of limitation that would apply would, therefore, be the one prescribed under Section 74A(2)(b) of the DVAT Act. And, that being the case, as we have mentioned above, the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 is barred by time.

Foreign travel expense for business cannot be disallowed merely because no business could be transacted

June 13, 2012 7388 Views 0 comment Print

If there is a foreign travel in connection with the business, merely because in the said foreign travel, no business could be transacted or the foreign travel did not result in bagging any contract is not the determinative factor. The relevant factor was as to whether he was sent by the assessee abroad in connection with the business of the assessee.

Telecom Infra Service Providers are eligible to procure goods against Form ‘C’

June 12, 2012 1290 Views 0 comment Print

Telecom Infrastructure Service Providers – Entitled to procure goods against ‘C’ Forms at concessional rate of CST @2% – Goods purchased are used in the telecommunication network and therefore covered by Section (1) and 8(3)(b) of the CST Act – Petitions allowed – Penalties levied on the appellants set aside.

S. 254 prescribes time limit of 4 years from the date of order for rectification of a mistake apparent from record

June 12, 2012 2433 Views 0 comment Print

Where larger bench of SC overrules its earlier decision on which Tribunal relied on, Tribunal can rectify that – Clearly, a time limit of four years from the date of the order has been prescribed in respect of the exercise of the power of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. There is absolutely no doubt that had an appeal or other proceeding been pending in respect of the order of the Tribunal in this case, when the decision in Gold Coin (supra) was rendered, that decision would have to be followed. But, as it happens, no appeal or other proceeding was pending. However, the period of four years stipulated in Section 254(2) had not elapsed. Thus, in our view, once we recognize the fact that the Supreme Court decision in Gold Coin (supra) operates retrospectively and therefore it has to be regarded as the law as it existed when the order was passed by Tribunal,

No interest can be charged if not mentioned in assessment order

June 10, 2012 4065 Views 0 comment Print

Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.

Reduction of share in the firm of existing partners, on admission of new partners, not taxable as capital gains

June 10, 2012 4959 Views 2 comments Print

The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.

Valuation accepted for Wealth-tax Act, should also be adopted under Income-tax Act

June 8, 2012 2042 Views 0 comment Print

Revenue having accepted the declaration of the valuation of the selfsame jewellery given by the assessee as on 31st March, 1989 as correct valuation for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act, there is no reason why the same valuation should not be treated to be a reliable base for the purpose of computing the capital gain under the Act by the process of reverse indexation.

Singapore Court dismisses India’s request to disclose black money

June 8, 2012 321 Views 0 comment Print

Information under article 28 of DTAA cannot be disclosed on the basis of un-signed transfer requests of Indian national to a Swiss Bank to transfer money to overseas bank accounts of two foreign companies. The Indian tax authority seized documents from an Indian national which were believed to indicate the existence of undeclared income deposited in a company’s bank accounts in Singapore. Pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the India-Singapore DTAA, the Indian tax authority sent a request for information to its Singapore counterpart (the Comptroller of Income-tax). In support of the request, the Indian tax authority relied on unsigned transfer instructions allegedly issued by the Indian national as evidence that the Indian national remitted monies to the Singapore Company’s bank accounts. The Comptroller filed an application in the High Court u/s 105J of the Singapore Income-tax Act for an order requiring the bank to produce the company’s bank records.

Whether A.O. has power to issue reassessments notice during the period when A.O. already issued notice for scrutiny assessment?

June 6, 2012 3150 Views 0 comment Print

For issue a notice u/s 143(2), reasons to believe are not required to be recorded in writing and power of the Assessing Officer to take up the return for scrutiny is much wider and the jurisdictional pre-conditions stipulated u/s 147 are not required to be satisfied. The respondents have agreed to and will be bound by the statement to withdraw notice u/s 147/148, but will have liberty and right to issue fresh notice u/s 147/148, after recording reasons to believe. The said notice will not be barred because the respondents had not initiated proceedings by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or they had earlier issued notice under Sections 147/148. With the aforesaid findings and observations writ petition is disposed of.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031