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.
It would be for the respondent to establish during the trial that her failure to file her return was not wilful. The Courts below went wrong in going into the question as to whether the explanation offered by the respondent in response to the show cause notice given to her before the filing
The Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the decision pronounced in the case of CIT vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 72 (Delhi) wherein it was held that a tanker or a gas cylinder attached to the body of a truck continues to be a gas cylinder
This Court is of the opinion that there has been inordinate delay in fixation of the writ petitioner’s fee. The facts would reveal that the petitioner’s services were availed more than 6 years ago and the final report of its special audit received on 22.09.2006.
In the present case the ITAT has recorded that it is undisputed that the two aircrafts were used by the Assessee for its business. Since this is the undisputed factual position, the same would be exempt from wealth tax.
key issue is whether the ownership of an industrial undertaking is a relevant factor for the purposes of construing the provisions of Section 80-I of the said Act. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the submission made by Mr Ganesh that Section 80-I does not speak of the ownership of an industrial undertaking.
In the said case, the respondent was a publisher of books but did not have a printing press. He would procure manuscripts, hit upon a suitable format, get it printed from third parties under his supervision, get the book bound and put it out for sale.
