If the revenue is to reply upon some documents for some part of them to claim that the documents reveal some undisclosed income of the assessee which has escaped tax and is earned during the block period, at the same time not giving same importance to the other parts of the documents, but understanding the other clauses by way of inference or on a logic attributing certain motives to the assessee, it is not a proper way of reading the document, assuming that it is relatable to the search and has a link to the search.
Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.
This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the interim order of stay in particular the order directing the appellant to pay 10% of the demand as security while entertaining the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2010 providing for proportionate credit, the order which is challenged in appeal has been recalled by the authorities and therefore, the appeal itself has become infructuous.
In a writ petition filed by small investors, Karnataka High Court Held that provisions of Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act are contrary to provisions of Section 139A of the Act. Accordingly, provision of Section 206AA were made inapplicable to persons and was read down from the Act only for those persons whose income was less than the taxable limits. However, the High Court made it very clear that the provisions of the Section 206AA are applicable to the persons whose income is more than the taxable limits.
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.
