The High Court held that Section 65(105)(zzzze) does not relate to goods as such as it imposes service tax on services provided or to be provided in relation to information technology software. The same can be brought under Entry 97 of List 1 of Schedule VII which relates to the residuary powers of the Parliament to make laws. Thus, the Parliament has the legislative competence to make laws relating to it.
The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 81 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court held that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organization would not be income which would be assessable to tax.
Credit for brought forward MAT is to be given from gross demand before charging interest u/s 234B. 2. Interest u/s 244A was allowable on the refundable taxes arrived at after giving credit of brought forward MAT from the gross demand.
The law of limitation has been enacted only to give a finality to a proceedings and not destroy statutory appellate remedy. The Court can condone the delay in spite of the fact the delay is very enormous-, if the Court is satisfied, with the reason stated in the affidavit. At the same time, even a short spell of delay may stare at the appellant if the appellant is not able to give a cogent acceptable reason for the delay.
The Legislature, by inserting sub-clause (vi) to clause(2) of section 17 with effect from 1-4-2009, has prescribed fringe benefits or amenities which are treated to be perquisite. Rule 3(7) prescribes the amenity/benefit by way of valuation; it has the status of the benchmark; if the valuation results in a positive figure, i.e., State Bank of India rate, rate at which the employer grants loan, then it would be treated as a concession; thus, the rule lays down an express method and provides for a basis of ascertaining the value for concession.
What the proviso to Section 112 essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of income arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds 10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond 10% is liable to be ignored.
The very purpose of having an independent regulatory authority like SEBI, and vesting it with statutory powers of inquiry, is to enable it to take prompt action in matters relating to issue and transfer of share; particularly, SEBI is expected to be the sentinel, read the fine print of prospectuses keeping the investors’ interests in view; it has both a preventive and corrective role to perform; therefore, it is not possible to place a narrow interpretation on the words “issue and transfer of securities” occurring in Section 55A.
Where the assessee-proprietory concern got merged with a company and the credit entries in the name of the company in the accounts of the assessee came to be assessed to tax at the hands of the company, there could not be a further liability fastened on the proprietary concern which had already suffered tax in the hands of the company with which the proprietary concern got merged.
here the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee under Section 140A is refunded, the assessee should be, on principle entitled to interest thereon since the self-assessment tax falls within the expression “refund of any amount”. The computation of interest on self-assessment tax has to be in terms of Section 244A(1)(b), i.e., from the date of payment of such amount up to the date on which refund is actually granted.
We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs.32,00,000/ is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.
