The Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, and thereafter the District Judge, Pune, negatived the contention of the Corporation holding that profession of Chartered Accountant is neither a trade nor a business. Advocate for the Respondents drew my attention to the judgment reported in Current Tax Reporter Volume 80 Phillipos & Company, Chartered Accountants & Ors. versus State. This is the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, wherein it is held that Office of the Chartered Accountant or of a firm of a Chartered Accountant is not an establishment within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, it is neither a shop nor a commercial establishment.
TDS on the charges you pay to a Barber? The word ‘carrying out any work’ in section 194C is limited to any work which on being carried out culminates into a product or result. The word ‘work’ in s.194C is limited to doing something with a view to achieving the task undertaken or carry out an operation which produces some result. The facilities/amenities made available by a hotel to its customers is not covered under any of the categories specified in the term ‘work’ in Explanation III to section 194C; consequently, the Circular No.681, dated 08-03-1994 to the extent it holds that the services made available by a hotel to its customers are covered u/s 194C must be held to be bad in law.
The parties cannot be deprived of their rights to challenge the award on the ground that there is a delay of 2 years and four months and the Award as declared after such a long period, in our view, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The party cannot be remedy-less. Even under Section 16, the objection even if decided, can be re-agitated under Section 34 of the Act. There is no such scheme for the delayed action of the Arbitrator. Considering the aforesaid aspects, in our view, the award is bad in law.
The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005, had not furnished any intimation to the Assessing Officer about the alleged misappropriation of funds. Though the FIR was lodged by the Assessee on 16 March, 2006 and the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2004-2005 were completed thereafter on 22 December, 2006, the filing of the FIR was not disclosed to the Assessing Officer.
The Sales Tax Department will identify the Defaulters namely, registered selling dealers who have not paid the full amount of tax due in the Government Treasury either by not filling their returns at all or by filing returns but not paying the full tax due or where returns are filed but sales to the concerned dealers are not shown (i.e. undisclosed sales).
It is not in dispute that although the employee of the assessee during the course of recording statement had admitted and expressed willingness to pay service tax, in the affidavit-in-reply to the show-cause notice, the liability to pay service tax was specifically denied and even before the adjudicating authority it was contended that service tax was not leviable.
The Court held that even if the defendant genuinely intended using the mark only to describe the aroma of the products, it would make no difference if the use of the mark is likely to be taken as a use as a trademark. The use of a registered trademark would constitute an infringement if it indicates a connection in the course of trade between the person and his goods.
On a plain reading of Rule 3, it is seen that the perquisite value of the residential accommodation provided by the employer is to be computed on actual amount of lease rental paid or payable by the employer and not on notional basis. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention of the revenue that the notional interest on the deposits paid by the employer to the landlord has to be taken into consideration while computing the perquisite value of the residential accommodation cannot be accepted in view of the express words used in Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as amended w.e.f. 1.4.01.
Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption. This was emphasised in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court while construing the provisions of Section 10B in Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (2010) 325 ITR 102 at para 24.
Whether when the assessee has significant interest in the business of the subsidiary and utilizes even borrowed money for furthering its business any disallowance can be made u/s 36(1)(iii).
