What constitutes ‘Service’ is certainly a subject matter of discussion. Its plain meaning is an Act of helpful Activity or Rendering of Assistance or Help. Service is generally a feeling in the form of efforts and excludes sale of goods or property or commodities. It pre-supposes existence of a Service Provider. For Service Tax purposes, if there is no Service, then there should be no Tax.
Whether for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act:-(a) Rule 8D is to be considered as retrospective; Whether before application of Rule 8D the Assessing Officer should give a holding that he is not satisfied for the basis or quantum of expenses disallowed by the Assessee; b) Whether disallowance is to be made if Investment is held as stock-in-trade?
Whether in determination of book profit u/s 115JB of I. T. Act, adjustment is to be made for:-(a) Depreciation not debited to P & L Account but a note is given in respect thereof; (b) Capital gain not credited to P & L account and taken to reserve; (c) Prior period expenses and extra ordinary items; (d) Difference in the amount of depreciation on account of change in the method of providing depreciation i.e. straight line to WDV or vice-versa?
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (ITA Nos.87Del//2008, 4788/Del/2007 and 233/Ahd/ 2006) holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Mr. Bomi S. Billimoria vs. A.C Cir 23(1), Mumbai (ITA No.2120/Mum/1998) held that in case no payment has been made for acquiring shares under Employee Stock Option Plan, the gain on sale of said shares should not be liable to capital gains tax. As the date of exercise of options and date of sale is same and further, there is no difference between the sale price and the deemed cost of acquisition, in any case, it is not short term capital gains.
The Delhi Bench of the Income – tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Tribunal), in the case of Vertex Customer Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer) held that exclusion of provision of doubtful debts from the operating expenses being a debatable issue and considering full disclosure made by the taxpayer; the taxpayer could not be held liable for penalty.
Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Maggronic Devices Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL-568-HC-HP-IT] held that payment made by the taxpayer to a Singapore company for outright purchase of plant and product knowhow cannot be considered as ‘Royalty’ within the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, no tax was required to be deducted while making payment to the Singapore company for acquiring such know-how outside India.
CA. Uttam Prakash Agarwal, President, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), has been awarded with the honorary membership of the Certified Practising Accountant of Australia by Prof. Richard Petty, President, CPA Australia Ltd. CPA Australia is one of the largest accounting bodies in Australia. CA. Uttam Prakash Agarwal was bestowed with this honor during his visit to Washington D.C. to attend the Board Meeting of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC is the global organization for the accountancy profession to protect the public interest by encouraging high quality practices by the world’s accountants) .
The scrutiny of returns had been a regular measure to check tax evasion since long. The collection of information for the purpose of making enquiries in the course of such scrutiny assessments is as much important as the assessment proceedings itself. There are various provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of collecting information directly from the assessees as also from the others for the purposes of making such enquiries at various stages of assessment proceedings. The findings of such enquiries are utilized for the purposes of completing the assessment proceedings in the case of a particular assessee.
After the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. delivered on 23-5-2007 and reported at (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), a large number of actions are being initiated u/s. 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) and often high-pitched Income tax assessments are being made at several places.
