It is the contention of the appellant (A CA Final Student) that when he got the copy of the answer sheet, he found that the examiner had not properly checked the papers. It is also his contention that despite the appellant having written correct answers to the questions which also tally with the suggestive answer sheet, the appellant was awarded less marks for the various answers
In this case it was held that issuance of advertisements offering to take coaching classes and to impart of training to aspirants of the profession of chartered accountancy, cannot be said to be carrying on the profession of chartered accountancy.
The Assessee filed application with AAR for for determination of the question regarding taxability of its profits arising from offshore sales. The AAR rejected the applications as notice Section 143(2)/ 142(1) were already issued prior to the filing of the application before the AAR, the transaction in respect of which the ruling of the AAR was sought was filed before the date of the application.
An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that other State through a broker, general commission agent, or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.
As far as DTAA in the present case is concerned, the income earned by the Assessee would be treated as royalty only where it is received as consideration for the use of the equipment, i.e., industrial, commercial or scientific.
mar Ujala & A & M Publication had being merged & Assessing officer disallowed cost of finance incurred for merger of above said companies & thus CIT(A), ITAT & Highcourt deleted addition made by AO & thus gave following decision: All the funds available at that point of time with the respondent / assessee were, in the course of the year, deployed in the business of the respondent/assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have disallowed the discount and interest on borrowing through commercial papers and non-convertible debentures.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that no Service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act to be levied on composite contract as there is no machinery provision for ascertaining the service element involved in the composite contract.
The Hon’ble High Court, after detailed analyses: Declared Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, as amended, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production of the documents mentioned therein on demand, as ultra vires the Finance Act and, therefore, struck it down to that extent;
declares Rule 5A(2) as amended in terms of Notification No. 23/2014- Service Tax dated 5th December 2014 of the Central Government, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production
Thus, while the legislative competence of the Parliament to tax the element of service involved cannot be disputed but the levy itself would fail, if it does not provide for a mechanism to ascertain the value of the services componentwhich is the subject of the levy.[Para 37]
