Assessee is engaged in the business of production and export of software from India to foreign countries and they are not in the business of providing technical services outside India, it is only producing and exporting software. The material on record clearly shows that except for these three years, rest of the certificates are correctly issued showing the amount involved in the production and export of the software at Clause 3(i). It is only in these three years certificates as against the Clause 3(i) nothing is typed and it is typed against Clause 3(ii). Hence, we are satisfied that there is a bona fide typographical error. The Chartered Accountant without carefully looking into those entries has issued the certificates, which has resulted in confusion.
The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.
security can acquire the character of stock-in-trade if it is so held as part of trading stock and the assessee acts as such. In respect of securities which are held by way of permanent investment by the assessee-bank as part of the requirement of the law, then such securities is not and cannot be either be construed or accepted as an investment in the form of security ready for sale. Stipulation on the bank is that it should be held as an investment in some Government securities or other securities.
The material on record discloses that the assessee on being pointed out by the authorities for not paying the service tax, has paid the service tax with interest even before the issue of show cause notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, categorically states that if tax and interest is paid and the same is informed to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice calling upon the authorities to pay penalty. It is unfortunate that inspite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued a show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice.
Once it is held that the office of a chartered accountant or of a firm of chartered accountants does not come within the expression of shop or commercial establishment as defined in the Act of 1961, the corollary would be that the provisions of the Act of 1961 cannot be applied to the office of a chartered accountant or of a firm of chartered accountants.
CIT v. Shravanee Constructions (Karnataka High Court) Section 80-IB(10) of the Act is applicable not for merely building housing project but for developing and building housing project. In terms of the agreement, the taxpayer not only undertook the development activities on the land in question, but in fact the taxpayer entered into an agreement of sale with the owners of the land, paid the entire consideration. However, it did not execute a registered sale deed in its name. Thus, the Assessee contributed the land.
word ‘transfer’ does not include partition or family settlement. HC observed that it is well settled that a partition is not a transfer. What is recorded in a family settlement is nothing but a partition. Every member has an anterior title to the property which is the subject matter of a transaction, that is, partition or a family arrangement. So there is adjustment of shares, crystallization of the respective rights in family properties and therefore it cannot be construed as a transfer in the eyes of law.
On facts, while the Dutch company performed the surveys using substantial technical skills, it has not made available the technical expertise in respect of such collection or processing of data to the assessees, which the assessee can apply independently and without assistance and undertake such survey independently. Consequently, the consideration is not assessable as fees for technical services
It was improper for Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to comment on the judgment of the Division Bench while disposing of the application expressing reservation about his powers to grant the interim order. Therefore, it has to be stated that the Appellate Authority has not proceeded to appreciate the points raised by the petitioners in support of his prayer for grant of interim order based on materials available before him, Instead, he has ventured into discussions which are irrelevant and impermissible having regard to the binding precedent in the form of a direction issued by the Division Bench.
The Return of Income filed pursuant to a notice notice U/s. 148 is not ‘voluntary’ & it can be readily inferred that the assessee had not furnished full particulars of his true income and so reopening became necessary. The explanation that the income was offered to buy peace is not acceptable because it is a clear case of admission of not offering true income earlier.
