This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Quash
We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the counsel on the either side. The important fact which is to be borne in mind in the present case is that no advance tax was paid by the assessee at all in the assessment year in question on the plea that such tax was not payable as the assessee had set off the interest income earned
Whether on a true and correct appreciation of the relationship between the assessee and its distributors, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the payments paid by the assessee is not commission as envisaged under Section 194H of the Act?” This question has arisen for determination for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05
This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal .s order dated 28.07.2006 passed in ITA No. 491/Del/2000 and relates to the assessment year 1998-1999.
Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel or the business of repairs to ocean-going vessels or other powered craft to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent thereof:
Delhi High Court on Thursday said the National Stock Exchange was a public authority and was bound to reveal information under the Right to Information Act. Justice Sanjiv Khanna dismissed NSE’s plea that it could not be forced to disclose information under the transparency law since it was an autonomous body and not controlled by the government.
Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited employers’ as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESI after the due date, as prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules, but before date of filing return.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT v. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited [2010-TIOL-124-HC-DEL-IT] on the issue of whether the year in which trial production starts can be considered as initial Assessment Year (AY) for claiming benefit under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) after relying on various judicial precedents held that the initial year is the year in which the commercial production starts and not trial production.
The assessee, an Indian company remitted mobilization & demobilization charges of Rs. 8.65 crs by way of reimbursement to its parent company, a company based in Netherlands. The assessee applied to the AO u/s 195 (2) for a Nil withholding rate though the AO held that tax had to be deducted at 11%.
Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL-139-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue whether the discount retained by Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs) on sale of Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards or recharge coupons belonging to the Taxpayer is liable for withholding tax, under the provisions of Indian Tax Law (ITL)
