In this tax appeal, Tribunal upholds Section 78 penalty, sets aside Section 76. Learn about the mutually exclusive nature and legal implications.
M/s Sasken Communication v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes & Ors (Karnataka High Court) The contract for development of software in question are not works contract but contract for service simplicitor and hence not liable to tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contract for development of software is not a composite contract consisting of a contract of service and contract for sale of goods. It is an indivisible contract of service only.
Whether, only because the assessee can deal in shares as per the memorandum of objects, any transactions undertaken by the assessee for sale or purchase of shares, in the earlier years is to be treated as business transaction, and the gains and loss resulting from the same to be assessed under the head business income and not capital gains.
ITAT was right in law and on merits by deleting the additions of income made as interest earned/acquired on the loan advanced to M/s Shaw Wallace by considering the interest as doubtful and unrealizable.
Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that Freight Subsidy received from the Govt. by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction under Section 80- 1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In the absence of link or connection between the gift made by the devotees and the profession or avocation carried on by the assessee, a religions head, the personal gift cannot be termed as income taxable under the Act
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that impugned Govt. Circular dt.11-11-1996 (which gave powers to the Registrar to appoint statutory auditors for urban credit/employees co-op. credit societies) is not applicable to the non-aided cooperative societies of any category. As a result of this Judgment, henceforth the non-aided employees staff credit/ urban credit societies can appoint auditors of their choice in their AGM/SGM etc.
The Petitioner, owner of commercial immoveable property, has let out the said property to business entities on rental basis. The Petitioner has challenged the levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property covered under Section 65(90a) and Section (65)(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and its retrospective amendment under the category ‘Renting of immoveable property services’ as ultra-vires the legislative competence of the Parliament.
Had there been no minimum penalty prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 38, it would have been open for the adjudicating authority to consider the conduct of the defaulter and the extent of delay taking into account the extenuating circumstances while imposing penalty. But once the statute prescribes the minimum penalty without giving any discretion in favour of the adjudicating authority, then one has to go by the provisions of the Act
In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year; such a recording is absolutely mandatory as per the provision and as laid down in various judgments
