It is held that Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January 201shall not hereafter be relied upon to deny refunds to the Assessees in whose cases notices might have been issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.
Amount deposited but not utilized wholly or partly for purchase or construction of new asset within the specified period will be charged to tax under Section 45 in the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset expired.
The reasons supplied to the assessee for reopening of the case relates mainly to Share capital, which is already been investigated by Assessing officer in detail during Original Assessment. Therefore, The present exercise of issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act would amount to nothing but a change of opinion, which is not permissible.
One of the necessary conditions for holding that an agent constitutes a PE of an enterprise is that the agent must have an authority to conclude contracts or should have been found to be habitually entering into or concluding contracts on behalf of the enterprise.
Delhi HC helkd that, All India Congress Committee (AICC) and Indian National Congres (INC) Delhi are not eligible to claim exemption u/s 13A of Income Tax Act for AY 1994-95 & 1995-96. The Court further holds that voluntary contributions received by political parties cannot be equated with corpus donation or capital receipts.
Section 40 (a) (i), in providing for disallowance of a payment made to a non-resident if TDS is not deducted, is no doubt meant to be a deterrent in order to compel the resident payer to deduct TDS while making the payment.
Reason for reopening of the assessment was a mistaken factual premise that the Assessee had changed the system of accounting from the mercantile to the cash system. It was more than adequately explained by the Assessee that this was an inadvertent error.
Delhi High Court has directed by its order to Union of India that till the next date the operation of the execution of para 1(a) (i) (b) of Notification No.9/2016-ST, para 1(a) (iii) and (b) (iii) of Notification No.18/2016-ST and para 2 (1) (a) of Notification No.19/2016-ST be and is hereby stayed and the Respondents are directed to continue the reverse charge mechanism for payment of service tax for Senior Advocates under Notification No.30/2012-ST.
As per amendment, the time limit for initiation of proceedings for assessee in default is four years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. It is proposed to make these amendments effective from 1st April, 2010 i.e. there was no time limit mentioned before this amendment.
It is a settled law that reopening based on change in opinion is not permitted. In the current case, revenue does not discovered another concealed permanent establishment but wanted to link the royalty received by the Petitioner by applying the principle of force of attraction to business income of PE in India.
