The Return of Income filed pursuant to a notice notice U/s. 148 is not ‘voluntary’ & it can be readily inferred that the assessee had not furnished full particulars of his true income and so reopening became necessary. The explanation that the income was offered to buy peace is not acceptable because it is a clear case of admission of not offering true income earlier.
J.R. Solvent Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Section 145 deals with method of accounting. However, under section 145(2) where the Income-tax Officer is not satisfied about the ‘correctness’ or ‘completeness’ of the accounts of the assessee or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee then the Income-tax Officer may make best judgment assessment as contemplated by section 144.
Provisions of section 23(2) make it clear that benefits of relief in respect of self-occupied property is available only to owner who can reside in his own residence, that means, benefit of relief is available to self-occupied property only to an individual assessee and not to an imaginary assessable entity/fictional entity such as a partnership firm. Various High Court decisions denying relief under section 23(2) to partnership firms cannot be invoked to deny relief to a HUF since unlike a firm which is a fictional entity and cannot physically reside and so cannot claim benefit of provision, HUF cannot be held to be a fictional entity.
Briefly stating the facts are that Hemant Gandhi was acting as a middleman for accused Dr. A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha, who were respectively posted as Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise at the relevant time. The allegations are that they were involved in obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen. Further the allegations are that they had conspired to conduct an unauthorized raid at the business premises of Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal.
ROS has also gone into disputes with regard to registration of members and the list of voters of the petitioner society. This aspect was also clearly beyond his jurisdiction. A dispute with regard to the membership, and the right of a particular member to vote at the elections is a dispute which arises between a society and its members. Such a dispute cannot be resolved by the Registrar. This is clearly beyond his jurisdiction.
THE Bombay High Court appears to have served a body blow to realtors in Maharasthra. The HC today dismissed their petition that challenged the applicability of Value Added Tax (VAT) on sale of flats. The builders argued that VAT is not payable on immovable property.
Honorable high Court in this case on the issue of payment of Commission by United Breweries Ltd. To its Chairman Shri. Vijay Mallya held that though the chairman has stood as guarantor in his personal capacity, the bank has lent money not on personal Guaranty of the Chairman but on the Assets of the Company which are offered as a security to the bank. This personal Guarantee is adopted as a mean to pay remuneration to managing Director for which he was otherwise not entitled too.
After the introduction of Explanation 10, it is no longer possible to contend that the subsidy given by the government, by whatever name called, cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets in terms of Section 43(1) of the Act for the purpose of allowing depreciation. But Explanation 10 does not cover the case of waiver of the loan. It covers only the grant of a subsidy or re-i mbursement by whatever name called. The case of the assessee may not, therefore, fall under Explanation 10, but having regard to the facts as found which we have alluded to earlier,
Whether the transportation service, provided in the factory of the M/s. Tata Auto Comp. Systems Ltd., to their staff for pick up and drop from their residence to the factory and vice versa, was an input service, in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly of the final products within the meaning and comprehension of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
Issue: Whether the explanation introduced to section 65(19)(ii) read with section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act 1994 providing for levy of tax on service rendered in relation to lotteries promoted or marketed by the clients is unconstitutional as claimed by the petitioners/assesee. Held: After hearing the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel and on going through the later judgment rendered by the Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.21/2009, we are unable to accept the challenge against the constitutional validity of the amendment.
