As no notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) in the present case as admitted by the AO himself in the remand report submitted to the learned CIT(A) as clearly mentioned by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph No. 17 on page 12 of his impugned order, the assessment order passed by him u/s 158BC suffered from a jurisdictional error and the same, therefore, was not valid in the eye of law.
If an order passed by the authority is not communicated to the assessee or the concerned person, it raises serious issues. These have been considered by Courts time and again. The principles of natural justice are, by now, fully evolved and expounded by a catena of decisions. The importance of the rule of natural justice is not only to secure justice but also to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Admittedly, they do not supplant the law of the land, but supplement it. These principles are enunciated in the case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150), and have been followed in a number of judgments.
Now , even individuals or HUF have been made responsible for deducting tax at source if their sales turnover exceeds Rs 40 lakhs or gross receipts from profession exceeds Rs 10 lacs. Not deducting tax at source from payments made will make them suffer very heavily. The punishment for not deducting tax at source, was enhanced by Finance Act 2004 by an amendment in section 40 of the I T Act. So , substituted section 40(ia) consists of following provision
The Income-tax Department is required to give credit for TDS based on the annual information in NSDL site. The assessee can register his PAN and view the status of TDS, advance tax and self-assessment tax (annual tax statement AS 26). Credit for TDS is given to deductees based on the returns submitted by the deductor. In the event of the returns being rejected for mismatch of challans or non- quoting of PAN numbers of some of the deductees, assessees have no remedy to get credit for TDS in the absence of rectification of returns by the deductor.
The Supreme Court has said that an Assessee cannot claim deduction under section 80-HHC of the I-T Act for losses suffered on transactions. The apex court ruled that the meaning of profits under the provision of the Act would not include losses. Even if there are losses, they have to be ignored for the beneficiary purpose of such deduction, it added.
The CBDT has given norms for current fiscal for selection of cases meant for scrutiny. For corporates: All banks and public Sector undertakings are liable for scrutiny. Also, all NSE-500 companies and BSE-A group companies listed in Bombay Stock Exchange as on March 31, 2007, are covered. Companies in Delhi , Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune, Hyderabad , Bangalore and Ahmedabad paying book profit tax under Section 115 JB on the book profit of Rs 50 lakh and above are liable for scrutiny. In the case of companies in other places the monetary limit for book profit is Rs 25 lakh.
RBI EFT is a Scheme introduced by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to help banks offering their customers money transfer service from account to account of any bank branch to any other bank branch in places where EFT services are offered.The EFT system presently covers all the branches of the 27 public sector banks and 55 scheduled commercial banks at the 15 centres (viz., Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhubneshwar, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Mumbai, Nagpur, New Delhi, Patna and Thiruvananthpuram). Funds transfer is possible from any branch of these banks at these centres to other branch of any bank at these centres both inter-city and intra-city.
Recycle Bin for Tally 7.2 and Tally 9 Enables you to retrieve Voucher entries that you may have accidentally deleted in Tally. It is similar to the Windows recycle-bin and works with Tally 7.2 and Tally 9. The ZIP file contains a readme.txt file which contains steps for configuring Tally.ini in order to use RBIN.TCP file.
In the present case, the dividend income is admittedly taxed in the hands of the assessee/ shareholder. Once the dividend income is assessed in the hands of the assessee / share-holder, the proviso to Section 199 of the Act would have no application and consequently denying the credit of TDS to the assessee / shareholder does not arise at all. The first proviso to Section 199 read with Rule 30A apply inter alia, where the dividend income is to be taxed in the hands of a person other than the shareholder. As the case of the assessee falls in the first part of Section 199, the assessee could not be denied credit of TDS.
It is evident that when the exempted amount of duty was required to be refunded for operationalising the exemption, Education Cess, which was in the nature of piggy back duty on the excise duties under the said three Acts, was also required to be refunded, because it was not at all leviable, in view of the entitlement to exemption worked out under paragraph 2 of the said Notification.
