This Court finds that no interest is leviable on the respondent assessees under Section 234B, even though they filed returns declaring NIL income at the stage of reassessment. The payers were obliged to determine whether the assessees were liable to tax under Section 195(1), and to what extent, by taking recourse to the mechanism provided in Section 195(2) of the Act.
Fr. Sabu P.Thomas Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The receipts in question, in the instant cases, are amounts by way of salary and pension. These payments accrue to the individuals concerned, who have rendered service in their individual capacity and based on the educational qualifications and skills possessed by them as individuals. The […]
On the issue whether the respondent-assessee could have earned dividend income and even if no dividend income was earned, yet Section 14A can be invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the appellant-Revenue.
DGFT denied the benefit of SFIS, as framed under the FTPto the Petitioners and separate communications were sent to the Petitioners withdrawing/recalling the said benefits on the ground that they were subsidiaries of foreign companies
Recently, in case of YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT.LTD AND Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, Hon’ble Delhi High Court pronounced that there is no provision in the Foreign Trade Policy which debars an Indian subsidiary of a foreign holding company from availing the benefit of Serve From India Scheme(SFIS).
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner was never put to notice before March 1, 2013;
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner society is running an educational institution. Merely because there are other objects of the society does not mean that the educational institution is not existing solely for educational purpose.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the date of presentation of cheque in the bank is to be reckoned as the date of payment of advance tax and not the date on which the cheque is cleared and entered in the receipt roll as required under Rule 20 of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules 1983
The question which is posed for consideration is whether for considering the long term capital gain Cost Inflation Index is required to be considered at the date on which the property was inherited in the name of the assessee or as per the previous cost of acquisition at which previous owner had acquired the capital asset.
