Not only that the details which were allegedly in the possession of the Assessing Officer and which is mentioned in the assessment order were not disclosed to the assessee, but also the Assessing Officer also has not disclosed any such details in the assessment order.
It is obvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and that the provision can be attracted only in cases where there is debtor-creditor relationship and that payments are made in discharge of a pre-existing obligation.
In the case of M/s.A.B.Agencies Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by Kerala High Court that a CHA cannot be absolved of his lapse of supervision and misconduct of his employees attracting Clause 19 of the Regulations warranting action against him under Regulation 20.
The High Court held that the assessee was bound to get its accounts audited under section 64 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the delay in audit by the auditor appointed under the Act was not attributable to the assessee.
The authorities below as well as the Tribunal, on verification of the materials on record, came to a finding that the audit report and balance sheet of the assessee had shown the outstanding amount as loan received from 12 persons.
Fr. Sabu P.Thomas Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The receipts in question, in the instant cases, are amounts by way of salary and pension. These payments accrue to the individuals concerned, who have rendered service in their individual capacity and based on the educational qualifications and skills possessed by them as individuals. The […]
When the petitioner had sub contracted the entire work and also obtained the Form 20H certificate from the sub contractor who undertook to discharge the tax liability in respect of the entire work that was sub contracted, the amounts retained by the petitioner, from out of payments made by the awarder of the contract, represented only the profit element that accrued to the petitioner in his capacity as the main contractor.
The constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been challenged in the Kerala High Court in the case of Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI WP (C) No. 31498/2013(J). Vide an interim order dated 18.12.2013, the High Court has admitted the Petition and granted a stay of proceedings for a period of two months.
Bonus cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of the expression salary as defined in Clause (h) of Rule 2. Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 4 contain a clear indication that the expression salary takes in only periodical payments made by the employer to the employee during a year by way of remuneration.
high court of kerala declares the levy of service tax on ac bar restaurants and on hotels providing short term accommodation as unconstitutional and beyond the legislative competence of the parliament
