A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that when refund order is issued, the same should include the interest payable on the amount, which is refunded.
Once an application for admission u/s 245C is filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, then the said application must be dealt with in accordance with law, i.e., refer to the contentions of the petitioners, the contention of the Revenue and then an objective, considered and a reasoned decision has to be taken.
Every Government has a right to levy taxes. But no Government has the right, in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made the victim of palpable injustice
Merely because expenditure has been incurred for material for duplication without acquisition of proprietary and when the expenditure is not of capital nature, the said Section would not be applicable.
Decision of this Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar reported in [2001] 247 ITR 801, wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a parnter is not subject to capital gains tax.
Whenever any decision has been relied upon and/or cited by the assessee and/or any party, the authority/tribunal is bound to consider and/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not.
Delhi HC has held on 22.11.2013 in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Vs. INFRASOFT LTD. that by sale of software what has been transferred is not copyright or the right to use copyright but a limited right to use the copyrighted material and does not give rise to any royalty income.
The petitioner before this Court is a differently abled person, being visually impaired. She is pursuing Chartered Accountancy Course under the aegis of respondent no.1 – The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICAI’).
The argument that the Indian parties should have discharged their TDS obligations u/s 195 despite the presumed request of the assessee is one of convenience or despair and not acceptable because in a practical view of the matter, the Indian payers could not have resisted the assessee’s request given future business prospects and the need to keep the assessee in good humour;
Capital gain arising of long term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under Section 54EC of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is created under Section 50 of the Act.
