Many a times dealers face a situation where due to technical error or clerical mistake while making payment of sales tax, tax is wrongly paid in wrong account i.e. instead of paying under the head of Central sales tax, it is paid under the head State VAT/sales tax.
Presumably, the case of the assessee was that price offered by the buyer was the highest prevailing price in the market. If this is his case then it is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value
The assessee basically is a share broker. The assessee also deals in buying and selling of shares for himself. The assessee is also dealing in derivatives. Dealing in derivatives has been excluded from the ambit of speculative transactions with effect from assessment year 2006-07.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order imposing penalty does not disclose that prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained in either of the two cases. He drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of AWT No. 4 of 2003 and AWT No. 5 of 2003
The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee.
Contribution to be made to the provident fund must be the proportionate amount of salary paid to the employees. Salary was a fixed monthly payment whereas the commission was not a fixed payment and could not be included within the scope and ambit of the term salary .
While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The learned Tribunal was of the view that Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act is applicable only to expenditure payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amount which had already been paid during the previous year, without deducting tax at sources.
The assessee sold the property at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/- For the purpose of stamp duty, however, the value was estimated at a sum of Rs.5, 19,77,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty was realized. During the assessment, it was found that the assessee had disclosed the sale price
The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under s. 271(1)((c) started. The Revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him.
