Delhi High Court held In the case of Honda Cars India Limited vs. DCIT that Since the petitioner is not an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C(15)(b), no draft order can be passed in the case of the petitioner U/s. 144C(1). Section 144C (15)(b) of the Act defines an “eligible assessee”
Court explained that the assessment for the block period can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer.
It is the case of the petitioners that succumbing to the pressure of lobbying and political pressure, brought by the members of the Cost Accountants fraternity, the State Legislature sought to bring a further amendment to Section 63 of the KCS Act, by Act no. 35 of 2014.
Revenue was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 against the deceased Assessee for AY 2008-09. The limitation for issuance of the notice under Section 147/148 was 31st March 2015. On 27th March 2015, when the notice was issued, the Assessee was already dead.
The present batch of arbitration matters have been preferred by the contractors assailing the order passed by the District Judge refusing to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’ in short) or for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act.
Kerala High Court held that levy of service tax on admission to amusement facilities do not result into any trenching of Union Parliament on power conferred on State as two aspects taxed by respective legislatures are ‘service’ and ‘amusement’ and no law is invalid in taxing its respective aspect even when same activity being getting taxed twice under two different laws.
Whether the ITAT was right in treating the payments made to retiring partners in the nature of compensation can be termed as goodwill and subsequently eligible for depreciation?
Back office operations carried on at an office would fall within the exclusionary clause of Article 5(3) (e) of the Treaty between India and United States which is also identically worded as Article 5(3) (e) of the India-UAE DTAA.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. that Mr. Rattan Gupta was not only doing the audit work of the five Assessee companies, but determining who should be the directors of the said companies.
Statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4).
