MUSTAQ AHMED VS. DIT (AAR) Where the income is actually received or has accrued in India, the resort to deeming provision is not warranted and s. 5(2) is sufficient to create a charge in respect of non-resident’s income. Clause (b) to Explanation 1 makes no difference to this position.
The three major ad valorem rates of Central Excise duty viz. 14%, 12% and 8% applicable to non-petroleum products have been reduced by 4 percentage points each. The revised rates will be 10%, 8% and 4% respectively.
Government has focussed its attention on countering the impact of the global recession on India’s economic growth. On the monetary side, the RBI has sought to pump sufficient liquidity into the banking system to enable bank credit to meet the expanded requirements of the economy keeping in mind the contraction in credit from non-bank sources. Banks have been provided adequate liquidity through a series of reductions in the CRR and additional flexibility in meeting the SLR requirement.
The Finance Act, 1994, provided for levy of service-tax in respect of ‘Taxable services’. Section 68 of the aforesaid Act lays down that the provider of taxable services shall be liable for payment of service tax, at the specified rate. The relevant provisions in this regard are section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, as also Rule 6 of the Service-Tax Rules.
ITO VS. VARIA PRATIK (ITAT A’BAD) Though s. 292BB comes into force on 1.4.2008 and not from any particular assessment year, it is declaratory, procedural and curative in nature and accordingly the validity of notices issued/served will have to be decided after 31.3.2008 in accordance with the provisions of section 292BB irrespective of the assessment year involved;
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
It is settled law that a writ cannot be entertained against a mere show-cause notice unless the Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate absolute want of jurisdiction in the AO.
Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. JCIT The deduction claimed by the assessee under section 42 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the deemed income under section 115JA
Valuing the closing stock at net realizable value method is duly recognized by AS-2 issued by the ICAI but, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the net realizable value whatever has been shown by him is the correct net realizable value and is less than the cost: the assessee has to satisfy the Assessing Officer by adducing the evidence that the net realizable value is less than the cost. D. Subhashchandra & Co. v. ACIT
The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated. The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated.
