Mere production of PAN Number or assessment particulars does not establish the identity of a person. The identification of a person includes the place of work, the staff and the fact that it was actually carrying on business and further recognition of the said company/individual in the eyes of public.
There are two types of cases. One in which the assessing officer carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the assessing officer ‘sits back with folded hands’ till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on the presumptions.
A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that when refund order is issued, the same should include the interest payable on the amount, which is refunded.
Once an application for admission u/s 245C is filed before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission, then the said application must be dealt with in accordance with law, i.e., refer to the contentions of the petitioners, the contention of the Revenue and then an objective, considered and a reasoned decision has to be taken.
Merely because expenditure has been incurred for material for duplication without acquisition of proprietary and when the expenditure is not of capital nature, the said Section would not be applicable.
Delhi HC has held on 22.11.2013 in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX Vs. INFRASOFT LTD. that by sale of software what has been transferred is not copyright or the right to use copyright but a limited right to use the copyrighted material and does not give rise to any royalty income.
The petitioner before this Court is a differently abled person, being visually impaired. She is pursuing Chartered Accountancy Course under the aegis of respondent no.1 – The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICAI’).
The argument that the Indian parties should have discharged their TDS obligations u/s 195 despite the presumed request of the assessee is one of convenience or despair and not acceptable because in a practical view of the matter, the Indian payers could not have resisted the assessee’s request given future business prospects and the need to keep the assessee in good humour;
Proviso to Section 112(1) is applied, then almost all assessees covered by the first proviso to Section 48 would be liable to pay tax @ 10% only and not @ 20% on long-term capital gains. The proviso to Section 112(1) is applicable to units and zero coupon bonds, which are not covered by the first proviso to section 48 of the Act.
Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant, cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bonafide.
