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.
Tax Planning :- Tax planning as a concept had at a point of time suffered degradation and for a while seemed to be a euphemism for tax evasion. This was the fall-out of some observations in McDowell’s case, [154 ITR 148 (SC)] especially in the separate opinion of Justice Chinnappa Reddy. But the libel did not stay too long. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Justice of the Supreme Court salvaged its respectability by observing tax avoidance by genuine transactions is not evil.
It is common knowledge that public information officers often do not furnish the information sought by the applicant under Right to Information Act (RTI). Is an appeal to the appellate authority of the Information Commission the only remedy? Or would failure to furnish information without valid reason constitute a deficiency in service for which compensation can be sought by filing a consumer complaint? This issue has been decided by the National Commission in a trendsetting judgment.
Section 195 of Companies Act, 1956 says that where minutes of the proceedings of any general meeting of the company or of any meeting of its Board of directors or of a committee of the Board have been kept in accordance with the provisions of section 193, then, until the contrary is proved, the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called and held, and all proceedings thereat to have duly taken place, and in particular, all appointments of directors or liquidators made at the meeting shall be deemed to be valid.
Typically in real estate transactions, the land holder contributes the land, the developer constructs the building and sells the flats along with the proportionate rights in respect to the land. As a result, each owner becomes the owner of an apartment with corresponding undivided share in the land arid an undivided share in the common areas. The usual feature of such agreements is that the land holder will have no say or control in the development.
Q.1 The amended section 6A of CST Act, 1956 requires the transferor branch to obtain ‘F’ form from the transferee branch and on failure to obtain the same the transaction is presumed to be sale. Whether such amendment can be said to be constitutionally valid, as it may amount to levy of tax on Consignment?
