In various Courts, the statistical data indicates that, on account of delay in process serving, arrears keep on mounting. In Delhi itself, the input indicates that fifty per cent of the arrears in Courts particularly in commercial cases is on account of delay in process serving.
Opining that the amendment of Section 43A of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1st April, 2003 is amendatory and not clarificatory and would thus, apply prospectively, the Court explained that under the unamended Section 43A, adjustment to the actual cost takes place on the happening of change in the rate of exchange, whereas under the amended Section 43A,
At the outset, we may note that although in view of the orders passed by the Committee on disputes, advising the Revenue not to file appeals against Tribunal’s orders, we find some substance in the objection of learned counsel for the Assessee about the maintainability of Revenue’s appeals before the High Court but as we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the appeals, at this stage, we do not propose to go into this question. We also reject at the threshol
The assessee, a fishing company, obtained two fishing vessels on charter from a foreign company based in Hong-Kong. The charter fee of $ 600,000 was payable from the earning from the sale of fish and for that purpose 85% of the gross earnings from the sale of fish was to be paid to the foreign company. The trawlers were delivered to the assessee at Chennai Port.
Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers, a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal (96 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB)) and the Bombay High Court (310 ITR 421 (Bom)) held that the ‘loss’ incurred by an assessee in ‘dividend-stripping’ transactions cannot be disallowed on the ground that it was ‘tax-planning‘. The department’s SLP against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Supreme Court today, 6th July 2010.
The right to subscribe for additional offer of shares/ debentures on rights basis comes into existence when the company decides to come out with the rights offer. Prior to that, such right, though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallizes only when the rights offer is announced bythe company.
Special Bench Tribunal Ruling: Entire amount of timeshare membership fee receivable by the assessee up-front should not be taxed at the time of enrolment of a member in the initial year on account of contractual obligation that is fastened to the receipt to provide services in future over the term of contract (ACIT v. Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
Expression ‘commercial training or coaching centre’ occurring in this sub-clause and in clauses (26), (27) and (90a) shall include any centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a trust or a society or similar other organisation under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive and the expression “commercial training or coaching” shall be construed accordingly. In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of CESTAT and direct the Tribunal to examine this case de novo in the light of the Explanation inserted in the Act.
Recently Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer), [2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT] held that merely making a claim in the return of income which is not accepted by the Tax Authority or which is not sustainable under the ITL, in itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars by the Taxpayer and, hence, is not liable to penalty.
Whether income returned was a profit or loss, was really of no consequence. Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was still leviable. It is in that context, to be noted that even prior to the amendment it could not be read to mean that if no tax was payable by the Assessee, due to filing of return, disclosing loss, the Assessee was not liable to pay penalty even if the Assessee had concealed and/or furnished inadequate particulars. The necessary consequence thereof would be that even if Assessee has disclosed NIL income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied. The aforesaid position is no more res integra and it stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
