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).
THE Bombay High Court appears to have served a body blow to realtors in Maharasthra. The HC today dismissed their petition that challenged the applicability of Value Added Tax (VAT) on sale of flats. The builders argued that VAT is not payable on immovable property.
Mr. Sharma, learned A.S.G. however submits that the appeal has been filed prior to the issuance of circular dated 9th February, 2011, therefore, the circular does not apply to the present case.In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Polycott Corporation a Division Bench of this high Court, while interpreting similar Instruction No.2 of 2005, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, regarding the earlier limit fixed for filing appeal before the High Court, has held that the circular would have a retrospective effect. In Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar, a Division Bench of this Court, while interpreting the very circular which is involved in this appeal i.e. Circular No.3 of 2011, has held that the circular has a retrospective operation and instructions contained in the circular would apply even to the pending cases. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sharma that the circular does not apply to the pending cases is rejected.
In the present case, as noted earlier, a provisional attachment has already been levied on 7 October 2011 under Section 281B by which the amount which was invested by the Assessee in mutual funds of SBI Mutual Funds was attached. The attachment was to the extent of Rs.36.54 Crores. That being the position evidently there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed under Section 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
irst Petitioner does have serious issues to be urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in appeal. This is a case where the Assessing Officer while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 220(6) and the Director of Income Tax ought to have granted a complete stay of demand. The Assessee has highlighted the nature of its activities in several applications filed in support of the plea for stay and also explained its financial position. None of this has been taken into account while disposing of the application for stay.
