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
The general proposition that while remanding issues for fresh consideration by the assessing officer, the Tribunal should be very cautious in issuing directions, even if it is only for the guidance of the assessing officer. The direction should not give rise to a situation where the assessing authority is likely to feel incommoded by it.
The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the assessee’s wife.
