In my view, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be said to be one which is covered by any one of the aforesaid circumstances. If that be so, rejection of their claim for waiver of interest cannot also be said to be illegal.
Whether reimbursement of expenses includible in gross consideration for the chargeability of Service Tax? Whether Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules is ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act, 1994?
Admittedly as is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, the stock of gold ornaments valued at Rs. 29,77,726/- was subject matter of block assessment under section 158BC of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the material on record in fact made an addition of Rs. 29,77,726/- as undisclosed income of the petitioner.
There is no dispute that after the partnership was reconstitued, the reconstituted firm had started a new business with an amendment to the partnership deed enabling the firm to carry on the manufacture and export of handicrafts items. Prior to the reconstitution the firm was authorized to merely carry on trading and exports of handicrafts etc.
Non-filing of the returns for the last several years cannot be a ground for declining to grant registration as the Commissioner is only enjoined to see as to whether the Trust is genuine and whether the object for which it has been formed is for charitable purpose or not.
If the business carried on by the trust is not in line with the object of the trust then whether the income from the business is liable to the exemption u/s 11. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that in case we hold that the assessee-trust is not eligible for exemption because the Katha business was itself not held under trust, it would produce an anomalous or discriminatory result inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the Katha business itself would be held in trust
The petitioner is a company incorporated on 24th April, 2006 as a Private Limited Company and doing business of selling, reselling and exchanging, etc. and dealing in all relevant components of computers. The respondent had approached the petitioner to hire the computers and laptops, by entering into an agreement. In view of the agreement, the respondent had hired computers, laptops, and peripherals from the petitioner.
The assessee continued to earn the non-compete commission in his capacity as an employee, to refrain from carrying on any business similar to that of UC. The assessee, in this case, also continued his employment with the firm, and was given commission for doing what he was normally expected to do, i.e. work for the said firm in his area of expertise.
As already seen, merely because, more than one panchanama is drawn in the given case on one authorisation, one cannot construe that the subsequent and the last of the panchanama issued as one flowing out of the search as a last of the panchanama referrable to Explanation (2) to Section 1 58BE. Once the warrant of authorisation has been issued and the premises is searched and the search party leaves the premises,
In the instant case, there is no notification or official document suggesting that either the Interministerial Committee, or any other officer or agency was nominated to perform the duties of the Board (constituted under section 14 of the IDR Act), for purposes of approvals under section 10-B.
