the Tribunal was right in rejecting the revenue’s application for raising the additional ground as that would have amounted to introduction of a new source of income. The decision in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra) also does not come to the aid of the revenue in this case. A new ground can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. As noted in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. A new ground may be allowed to be raised only when it arises from the facts which are on record. (Para 18)
In the present appeals, the appellant i.e., the Pay and Accounts Officer is representing the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is an admitted fact that interest imposed on the appellant under Section 201(1A) has been paid by the appellant on protest and pursued the appellate remedy by obtaining necessary sanction from the Government in G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 27.3.2002
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, partly allowing the cross objections of the assessee, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner. The remand has been made on the aspect of gross profit rate. However, the learned Commissioner, and the learned Tribunal, upheld the rejection of books of accounts,
The circular, dated August 1, 2006, aforementioned, is binding on the department and this circular makes it more than abundantly clear that when a builder, promoter or developer undertakes construction activity for its own self, then, in such cases, in the absence of relationship of ‘service provider’ and ‘service recipient’, the question of providing ‘taxable service’ to any person by any other person does not arise at all.
H and R Johnson (India) Limited,Versus Union of India – Under the given circumstances of the case and particularly the purport of Rule 22 (2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the proviso thereto, the initiation of a new shipper review cannot be with retrospective effect in the case of a first time exporter.
Explore the legal case of M/s Goel Coal Co. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh regarding entry tax. Understand the significance of rubber seal on invoices and how the absence of such seal affects the liability of the petitioner. Read the High Court of Madhya Pradesh’s order dated 7/3/2008, highlighting key legal points. Get insights into the burden of proof, implications of the Ranomal case, and the petitioner’s entitlement to the prima facie import of the absence of a rubber stamp. Stay informed about the intricacies of entry tax laws in this comprehensive legal analysis.
The grievance of the revenue is that proviso appended to section 43B of the Act permitting allowing of deduction of PF, ESI etc., subsequent to the close of the accounting period but before the return is filed, should not have been followed but disallowance must be upheld. It has not been disputed before us that the proviso has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 effective from 1.4.1988. In view of this, the appeals preferred by the revenue have been dismissed.
The assessee is a cable network operator through which it provides telecasting of programmes to the ultimate consumers/subscribers. The assessee in turn enters into a contract with the licensor of various TV channels. On the payment so made, Section 194C of the Act is attracted.
No doubt, section 192 of the Income-tax Act requires the employer to deduct the income-tax from the salary and the salary is defined under section 17 of the Income-tax Act, which includes wages, any annuity or pension, any gratuity, any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages, any advance of salary and other payments
Tribunal has also placed reliance on yet another judgment of the Supreme Court. ported in (1972) ITR 83 page 27 (Hindustan Steel Limited Vs State of Orissa), where it dealt with the provisions contained in Orissal Sales Tax Act. While considering the general principles, the Apex Court has held that penalty can be levied on failure of the assessee
