Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The apex Court, in the case of Rajesh Kumar v .Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2006)287 ITR 91 while considering the scope of Section 142(2A)of the Act
Where an Association or Company trades with its members only and the surplus out of the common fund is distributable among the members, there is mutuality and the surplus is not assessable to tax as profit.
The Tribunal, first and foremost, is duty bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India to ensure that it follows binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal as a judicial body must follow principles of consistency when it decides cases. The lack of consistency is clear on the face of record. Judicial orders must be passed by the Tribunal
The admitted position before the Court, on the basis of the material on the record, is that by the notice under Section 148 issued on 30th November 2009, the assessment pertaining to the year 2002 03 was sought to be reopened after the lapse of four years. Section 147 postulates inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe
S. 2 (24) (x) provides that amounts received by an assessee from employees towards PF contributions etc shall be “income”. S. 36 (1) (va) provides that if such sums are contributed to the employees account in the relevant fund on or before the due date specified in the PF etc legislation, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction
In absence of Supreme Court’s order staying operations of High Court’s judgment relating to levy of service on renting of immovable property, Revenue Department could not instruct its officers to pursue the matter with tax payers calling upon them to pay service tax on same or to resort to other means under the law to protect the Revenue.
The present tax appeals have been field by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat -II under sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to raise the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law in reducing the penalty on the respondent from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 20 lakhs ?” 2. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. R.
The photography films, printing papers, chemicals and envelopes are the integral and essential ingredients to complete the process of photography. Meaning thereby, the components of sale of photography, developing and printing etc. are clearly distinct and discernible than that of photography service. Therefore, we are of the view that as the photography
We have prefaced the discussion on provisos with the object of putting the real controversy in its true perspective. The orders passed by the Chief Commissioner are identical in all these cases and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the following substantive questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:
S. 10(23C)(vi) provides that the income of any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit shall be exempt. The assessee was running a school solely for educational purposes and claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi).
