Where the assessee-employer allowed the employees the benefit of deduction under section 10 (5) of the Act without collecting evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amounts paid towards Leave Travel Concessions/Conveyance Allowance and the question arose whether the employer could be said to have wrongly allowed the deduction, HELD:
It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s). For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
THE Supreme Court today simply dismissed the much-hyped USD two billion Vodafone capital gains tax case at the admission stage itself. Before rejecting the SLP, the Bench asked the assesee – why did they not furnish the copy of their original agreement to the Court and also to the Revenue? In reply the assessee spoke about their delayed offer and promised to make the same available any time.
A short question which arises for determination in this Special Leave Petition is: whether the High Court was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Reference Application by the Commissioner under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The question relates to the effect of Section 43A of the Act.
India Cine Agencies Vs CIT, Madras Income tax – Sec 32AB benefits – assessee converts jumbo rolls of photographic films into small rolls of various sizes – claims Sec 32AB, Sec 80HH and Sec 80I benefits – AO says it is neither manufacture nor production
Explore the Supreme Court judgment on Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala regarding excess Sales Tax collection. Learn how the retrospective effect of a notification led to a rate reduction, compelling the state to refund the excess amount. Discover the legal implications, the court’s interpretation, and the directive for the state to refund the tax with interest. Stay informed about key legal precedents and the principles of statutory construction.
Haleema Zubair, Tropical Traders Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)- The business activities relating to transaction of M/s. Poseidon Food Company unless otherwise proved cannot bring the appellant within the purview of definition of `dealer’. If she was not a dealer, the professional fees earned by her would not be exigible to payment of sales tax; only because the appellant happens to be the proprietress of M/s. Tropical Traders also.
Whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed. merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the different High Courts. In this case, it is accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the fact situation in all the assessment years is same. According to him, if the fact situation changes then the revenue can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact that for some years no appeal was preferred.
It was held that the order was passed in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against which the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.
