As on November, 1998, the word company or firm was not included under definition of section 65(31) and section 66A had come into force w.e.f 18-4-2006, therefore, service tax was not applicable to a foreign company for rendering service in India for the period November, 1998 to December, 2000
No provision similar to the provision enabling both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal to admit appeals presented beyond the period of limitation if they are satisfied that there was sufficient cause on the part of the appellant for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act is framed in the context of appeals to the High Court under s. 260A.
Of the three years, the CIT granted stay for two years and directed the AO to realize the demand for AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 7.69 crores. No reasons were given for the decision. Despite the stay granted by the CIT, the AO issued garnishee notices u/s 226 (3) for the entire amount of Rs. 59.06 crores. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge the same. HELD allowing the Petition:
The taxpayer, Porrits & Spencers (Asia) Limited, is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is in the business of manufacturing of engineered fabrics and industrial textiles. During the financial year 1990-91 it purchased, on credit, 2.5 million units ofUS64 (the units) of Unit Trust of India (UTI ) on 21 May 1990 at the prevailing market rate of Rs. 15 per unit. As per the certificate issued by UTI, such units were transferred to the taxpayer on 30 May 1990. The taxpayer received a dividend of Rs. 4.5 million on the said units on 6 July 1990.
Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the transactions for purchase and sale of 25 lacs units called `US-64′ of the assessee with the Bank, after holding that those transactions were genuine, were (a) not bona fide transactions, (b) entered into with a motive to avoid liability for tax etc.
assessee therefore, cannot be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction under s. 263. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the CIT, passed under s. 263, directing the AO to include the sum of Rs. 1,75,32,600 in the total income of the assessee under s. 41(1), in the previous year, relevant to asst. yr. 1982-83
Under s. 158BB, the procedure for computing the undisclosed income of the block period has been given. It provides that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, on the basis of evidence found
One Bench of the Tribunal decided an appeal in favour of the assessee. However, another Bench refused to follow that decision even though the facts were the same on the ground that the earlier decision did not address the grievance of the Revenue and did not consider all the facts and did not lay down a clear ratio
The relief sought for by the petitioner seeking permission to be accompanied by an advocate of his choice when he appears before the Enforcement Directorate in pursuance of the summons issued under section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and recording of statement in the presence of an advocate
The assessee, an Indian company remitted mobilization & demobilization charges of Rs. 8.65 crs by way of reimbursement to its parent company, a company based in Netherlands. The assessee applied to the AO u/s 195 (2) for a Nil withholding rate though the AO held that tax had to be deducted at 11%.
