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.
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.
