The company was bound by its own articles and could not have taken a plea contrary to what is contained therein. On the death of the original shareholder ‘J’, in view of his Will dated 23-6-1996 and the subsequent settlement arrived at between his mother and son ‘D’ and daughter ‘L’, on 19-2-2009, 1/3rd shareholding of ‘G’ vested in each of the aforenoted persons and thereafter the death of Gayatri Devi on 20-9-2009 pursuant to her Will dated 10-5-2009, the shareholding then devolved upon the petitioner group i.e. D and L who admittedly had a succession certificate from a competent Court of law recognizing them as holders of the aforenoted shares of the original holder Jagat Singh. In terms of section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, 1965, this evidence was conclusive for the transmission of shares of the companies in favour of the petitioner group.
The Department argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appearing in the adjudicatory process as also by way of an appeal as provided under the statute. However, said proposition could not be agreed to inasmuch as the basis of the show-cause notice as well as the adjudication order was the instruction dated 28-4-2008.
The taxable event as per the Finance Act, 1994 is the providing of the taxable service. In the present case, we find that not only were the services admittedly provided prior of 14.05.2003 but also the bills have been raised prior to 14.05.2003. The only thing that happened after 14.05.2003 was that the payments were received after that date. That, in our view would not change the date on which the taxable event had taken place. Since the taxable event in the present case took place prior to 14.05.2003, the rate of tax applicable prior to that date would be the one that would apply. In the present case, the rate of 5% would be applicable and not the rate of 8%.
The question before us is what would be the rate of tax where (a) the service is provided by the chartered accountants prior to 01.04.2012; (b) the invoice is issued by the chartered accountants prior to 01.04.2012 but (c) the payment is received after 01.04.2012.
In the facts of this case the vessels were consistently registered under section 407 of the Merchant Shipping Act and had a valid certificate which was produced for consideration by the appellate authority who sought remand report. It is also not disputed that the vessel is a qualifying ship for sea in terms of clause (a) of section 115VD.
In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 139. Section 44 was considered and so was the First Schedule to the said Act and particularly rule 5(a) thereof. The Supreme Court observed that section 44 is a special provision governing computation of taxable income earned from the business of insurance.
In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the ‘person responsible’ for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying goods.
It has been recognized by the Supreme Court itself in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500, that even where proceedings under section 147 are sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under section 143(1), the ingredients of section 147 have to be fulfilled;
The credit given for TDS in an order passed under Section 155(14) read with Section 154 cannot be construed as a relief given in the original assessment order. Section 155 of the Act provides for various situations under which an order can be amended because of developments taking place subsequent to the date on which the order was originally passed.
The test of enduring benefit which was perceived as the true and applicable test to judge whether an expenditure fell in capital field has been, over the years, considered as a self-limiting one. The Courts have held that a proper approach has to be adopted and in doing so the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense
