19. It is true that attaching the properties of an assessee even before the crystlisation of the demand is a drastic step and has to be exercised only in extreme circumstances. Whether extreme circumstances existed in the present case so as to levy provisional attachment under section 281B of the Act is the question. 20. In the present case, the incriminating documents seized during the course of search and seizure
8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act. 8.4 A perusal of the reasons would thus show that the Assessing Officer was
In October 2007, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two partners of M/s Pricewaterhouse (PWC) for alleged professional and other misconduct in conducting the statutory audit of Global Trust Bank. The proceedings were based on the findings in the Special Audit report and the Annual Financial Inspection of the RBI. Though several hearings were conducted by the Disciplinary Committee,
Citing the Supreme Court order in the Vodafone case, the Bombay High Court today dismissed the SABMiller writ petition against a showcause notice issued by the Income Tax Department. CNBC-TV18’s Ashwin Mohan reports on how this matter is similar to the Vodafone case? This case is similar to the Vodafone tax tussle. The Income Tax Department order on Vodafone is still pending.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee we are of the view that the answers to the questions framed has to be found in favour of the assessee and against Revenue for the reasons given hereinafter. It is clear upon perusal of the facts and circumstances quoted by us hereinabove that if JISCO had to have a successful rights issue it was incumbent that it received a subscription
No appeal lies against the order rejecting an application for renewal of CHA Licence. In absence of any other remedy it is open to this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in case where an application for renewal is rejected.
CIT Vs. M/s K.G. Denim Ltd. (Madras HC) – The Assessing Officer is not entitled to touch the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act, while arriving at the book profit under Section 115J and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and therefore, the computation under Section 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only. The Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that in view of the non obstante clause available in Section 115JA it was clear that the provisions is a self-contained one and no other provision would have effect on it and thereby it was to be implemented as contained in the said provision.
Assessee-company under the tripartite agreement, in particular, clause 4.1 was under no obligation whatsoever to contribute any money to its wholly owned subsidiary YRMPL. The facts as found also show that whatever was spent by the assessee-company by way of advertisements towards liability to advertisers such as O&M and HTA etc. was allowed. Furthermore, the facts also reveal that the total contributions received during the period by YRMPL was Rs 2.64 crores out of which it had admittedly spent Rs 2.19 crores and the balance Rs 44.44 lacs remained unspent. The point to be noted is that what the assessee-company in law could not have claimed directly, that is, by making a provision for advertising expenditure could it then be allowed to claim an amount as an expense merely on account of the fact that it had set up an intermediary in the form of a wholly owned subsidiary
The Delhi High Court held that the renting of immovable property is not a service, and accordingly, the levy of service tax on the activity of renting is “ultra vires.” The decision may have significant accounting implications on the entities. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
The sum due as referred to under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 must mean what has fructified and can not merely be a contingent liability or deferred payment; if the liability has not fructified within 21 days from the time the date of service of notice, it cannot be said to be a debt which company is unable to pay, in order that the Court could find a justification for winding up the company.
