S. 254 (2A) empowers the Tribunal to grant stay of recovery of demand for a period not exceeding 365 days. The 3rd Proviso to s. 254(2A) inserted by the Finance Act 2008 provides that if there is a delay in disposing of the appeal within the said period, the order of stay shall stand vacated even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
Delhi High Court on Thursday said the National Stock Exchange was a public authority and was bound to reveal information under the Right to Information Act. Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed NSE’s plea that it could not be forced to disclose information under the transparency law since it was an autonomous body and not controlled by the government.
The assessee purchased US-64 Units of the UTI in May 1990 for Rs. 3.75 crs, received dividend thereon of Rs. 45 lakhs and sold the units in July 1990 for Rs. 3.25 crs. The assessee claimed that deduction u/s 80M was available on the dividend and that a short-term capital loss of Rs. 51.61 lakhs on purchase and sale of units was allowable.
In a recent judgment of Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, the Bombay High Court has held (among other things) that in case of a “public company”, its shares are freely transferrable under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) even if the Articles of Association (the Articles) contain restrictive provisions relating to transfer of shares.
When the assessee is a consignment agent, as the definition of C&F agent includes consignment agents, CESTAT was not right in holding that the service provided by a consignment agent is not covered by section 65(25) of the Finance Act, 1994.
the agreement was on a principal to principal basis, (ii) the manufacturer had his own establishment where the product was manufactured, (iii) the materials required in the manufacture of the article or thing was obtained by the manufacturer from a person other than the assessee and (iv) the property in the articles passes only upon the delivery of the product manufactured, the contract was one of “sale” and there was no obligation to deduct tax u/s 194C. The fact that the assessee imposed restrictions on the manufacturer as to quality of the goods, user of trade marks etc are merely matters of business expediency.
ection 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 163 assess or re assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently
The only other argument advanced was in respect of the penalty and interest imposed in so far as assessment year 1987-88 is concerned relying on the judgment in the case of Rohitkumar. The returns were filed only after the seizure of the incriminating material. The issue of whether penalty or interest could be levied was in issue in proceedings for adjudication. In the instant case, the levy of penalty or interest including for the Assessment Year 1987-88 has not been challenged and has become final.
The omission of the AO to levy interest under section 234B(3) in the first reassessment completed under section 147 which could have been rectified under section 154, does not bar the AO from levying interest under the very same provision, when the assessment was again revised a second time under section 147.
Since the Stock Exchange membership card which is sold in auction is property covered by the description “capital asset” under section 2(14) of the I.T Act, it’s sale by stock Exchange amount to transfer” within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act.
