Payments made to the Non-Resident Sports Associations represented their income which accrued or arose or was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. Consequently, assessee was liable to deduct Tax at Source in terms of Section 194E.
Uptill AY 2016-17, if a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the return is not required to be processed u/s 143(1) for grant of refund to the assessee however, from AY 2017-18 & onwards, a different regime is prescribed by Parliament by inserting section 241-A which required separate recording of satisfaction on part of AO that having regard to the issue of notice u/s 143(2), the grant of refund was likely to adversely affect the revenue. The withholding of refund required the previous approval of the PCIT with reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, demands in respect of earlier assessment years including the liability as a result of order dated 28.12.2019 being outstanding, the respondents would be entitled to invoke the requisite power under Section 245 to set off the amount of refund payable in respect of AY 2014-15 against tax remaining payable.
The doctrine of mutuality bestows a special status to qualify for exemption from tax liability. It is a settled proposition of law that exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation. Asssessee having failed to fulfil the stipulations and to prove the existence of mutuality, the question of extending exemption from tax liability to assesse, that too at the cost of public exchequer, did not arise. Once it was conclusively determined that the assessee company had not operated as a mutual concern, there would be no question of extending exemption from tax liability.
In re Vijay Rule & Ors. (Supreme Court) There is not an iota of remorse or any semblance of apology on behalf of the contemnors. Since they have not argued on sentence, we have to decide the sentence without assistance of the contemnors. In view of the scurrilous and scandalous allegations levelled against the judges […]
Since the activities carried on by the liaison office of the non-resident in India was to only carry on such activity of a ‘preparatory or auxiliary’ character, therefore, the same was not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA and the deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act could have no bearing.
Even though assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases during the assessment proceedings, he filed affidavits and statements of the dealers in penalty proceedings and appellate authority had not only accepted the explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by assessee thus the quantum addition under section 68 would also have to be deleted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Circular dated 27.03.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India has not been implemented by the banks. Hon’ble Supreme Court directs the Reserve Bank of India to ensure implementation of the Circular dated 27.03.2020 in its letter and spirit.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs UNI Products India Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The core issue in these appeals is as to whether car mats come under chapter-heading 57.03 or not. In the second appeal, the numerical representation of the product, as claimed by the assessee, was different but that difference is not of much […]
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Exide Industries Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court) Before the judgment in Bharat Earth Movers (supra), various tribunals and High Courts across the country were treating the liability in lieu of leave encashment as a contingent liability. This did not go down well with the assessees following the mercantile accounting […]
Understanding the law of recording satisfaction when AO of searched person and other person is the same. Analysis of a recent Supreme Court judgment.
