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
Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Agricultural income Assessment years 1988-89 and 1990-91- Whether sale proceeds of plants raised in nursery on land belonging to assessee constitutes income from agriculture – Held, yes . Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. Green Gold Tree Farmers (P.) Ltd.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
In our view, once all the material was before the AO and he chose not to deal with the several contentions raised by the petitioner in his final assessment order, it cannot be said that he had not applied his mind when all material was placed by the petitioner before him.
There is no doubt that the non-compete agreement incorporates a restrictive covenant on the right of the Assessee to carry on his activity of development of software. It may not alter the structure of his activity, in the sense that he could carry on the same activity in an organization in which he had a small stake, but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income for him and it is of an enduring nature, as contrasted with a transitory or ephemeral loss.
CIT vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 to have that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) binding on the officers of the Income-tax Department. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.
CIT vs Dharmendra Sharma – This decision was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and by an order dt. 7th March, 2007 [reported as CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268—Ed.], the Supreme Court observed that it was concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit provided under s. 43B of the Act for that period particularly in view of the fact that he had contributed to provident fund before filing the return. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Gauhati High Court was dismissed.
In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
ANY business is a tricky ‘business’ for its doers ! It is tricky because of the presence of many parameters beyond the control of the doers. Under such circumstances, what is to be treated as normal expenditure of business is the sum of compensation which a business-doer has to incur as expenditure for paying damages in case of non-fulfilment of certain obligations under a contract. Now, the major question is whether such an expenditure can be treated as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business as mandated by the provision of the Sec 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?
