Parties have settled the dispute. A query, however, is raised by the Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants regarding deduction of TDS on the interest component of the decree. Apprehension is expressed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants that under the provisions of section 194A of the Income Tax Act, on the interest component which is payable
In an oral judgement pronounced today 12th March 2010, the Court held that while “works contracts” were subject to TDS under section 194C, “sales contracts” were not. It upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that the contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a “sales contract” which was not liable to TDS u/s 194C.
The assessee earned a profit on sale of shares held as stock-in-trade. This profit was offered as profit from a ’speculation business’ and was set off against a ’speculation loss’ brought forward from an earlier assessment year. The AO took the view that the profit from sale of shares was not from a ’speculation business’ on the ground that the assessee
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC which was allowed to the extent of Rs. 32.17 crs by the AO. The claim included DEPB license sale proceeds. The CIT revised the assessment u/s 263 on the ground that s. 28 (iiia) did not apply to a DEPB license and its proceeds were not eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal
The assessee was a partner in a firm. Upon retirement, he received an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in addition to the balance lying to his credit in the books of the firm in full and final settlement of his dues. The assessee filed a return in which the said amount was not offered to tax on the ground that it was a capital receipt. No assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal, first and foremost, is duty bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India to ensure that it follows binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal as a judicial body must follow principles of consistency when it decides cases. The lack of consistency is clear on the face of record. Judicial orders must be passed by the Tribunal
The admitted position before the Court, on the basis of the material on the record, is that by the notice under Section 148 issued on 30th November 2009, the assessment pertaining to the year 2002 03 was sought to be reopened after the lapse of four years. Section 147 postulates inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe
In AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) of Rs. 3.85 crs which was allowed by the AO vide s. 143 (3) order. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year on the ground that the claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) included ineligible items of other income such ’society deposit’,
it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of writ petition no.2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions
The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income
