HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e.,as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two,
The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.
Explore the legal implications of extinguishment of property rights in the CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani case at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Uncover the details of the dispute, the compromise, and the tax implications. Understand the court’s ruling on whether the amount of Rs. 7,34,000 is considered a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax, as per Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Stay informed on the legal precedents cited, including the Bombay High Court decisions and the Supreme Court’s stance on property rights extinguishment.
Whether the obligation to register a transfer of shares within a particular period of time was mandatory or directory? Whether the company can cancel or reject the transfer where stamps on transfer form were not defaced or canceled?
Amounts were collected as per the directions given by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, it goes to the molasses storage fund over which the assessed has no control and domain. Inasmuch as the assessed cannot utilise the same for its own business purpose, we have also here to hold that there is diversion by overriding title at the source itself
As per the provisions of section 210(5), if an assessee, who receives an order under sub-section (3) or (4) of section 210, feels that his current income would be less than the amount on which advance tax has been demanded, vide such order, he can send an intimation in Form No. 28A to the Assessing Officer and pay advance tax as per his own estimate.
In spite of the enunciation of law in ACC, Entry 25 has not stood revived or restored into the Sixth Schedule of the Act. Therefore the Authorities under the Act cannot levy tax under the Act in regard to transfer of property in goods involved in processing photo negatives and supplying of photo prints and photographs, as if Entry 25 has stood restored in the Sixth Schedule to the Act.
The only dispute in the present appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income from the investment of rupees two crores in the purchase of 13.5 per cent. PSEB Bonds, 2003 First Series on September 20, 1993.
Argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that since the amount of Rs. 10,31,344 has admittedly been paid on account of interest, it retains its character as interest and, therefore, the Food Corporation of India must be allowed to deduct interest thereon at the rate in force, is not tenable
