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
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including quashing of Ext.P2 circular. The main ground of challenge of the order is that the Securities and Exchange Board of India has no power to issue the notification. The circular is for the benefit of the investors. It ensures transparency or openness as distributors have been asked to disclose the commissions they are entitled to, under different competing schemes of various mutual funds so that the investor can make a considered choice. Conflict of interest is avoided or at least informed to the investor. Distributor is required to disclose commission, if any, payable to him by the mutual fund on the investment made by the investor. Thus the circular does not bar payment of commission by a mutual fund but mutual funds cannot charge upfront load.
If the claim of the Revenue that both the assessments were completed by the same officer one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD is correct, then certainly the review has to be allowed as Manish Maheshwari’s case (supra) has no application. We, therefore, allow the review petition by recalling the judgment and by allowing the income-tax appeal by vacating the orders of the Tribunal with following direction to the Tribunal. If, on verification by the Tribunal it is noticed that assessments on both assessees one under s. 158BC and the other under s. 158BD are completed by the very same AO, Tribunal will treat the appeal as allowed by treating their orders as cancelled and by restoring the appeal before the Tribunal for them to take decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Insofar as the absence of any other business or source of income is concerned, first of all, respondents themselves have no case that the petitioner had any other business or source of income. It is also the admitted case of the respondents that the entire properties of the petitioner are under attachment and that the interest liability of the petitioner was satisfied from out of the compensation amount remitted by the Corporation of Cochin. These facts, in my view, prima facie substantiate the case of the petitioner that he had no business or source of income and that payment of interest as demanded, would cause genuine hardship.
