THE New Year has just set in, and things have started going awry for the CBDT. In fact the CBDT’s ‘time chakra’ had entered the adversarial zone some time late last year when the Delhi High Court had begun to take note of its frivolous appeals. It did warn the income tax authorities and also asked for detailed procedure and screening methodoligies adopted by the Board before an appeal is filed before the High Courts.
Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Dayal Singh The officers of the bank completed all paper formalities, perhaps at the behest of the respondent or at least on the basis of his certificate for disbursement of the loan. The activity of the respondent in issuing such a vague certificate with the intention of persuading the bank to grant his client a loan amounted to `other misconduct’ within the meaning of the Act, read with the regulations framed thereunder.
The appellant exercises computer control over the computes installed at the premises of the subscribers. This amounts to a fixed place of business for carrying on the business of the enterprise in India . But for the supply of computers, the configuration of computes and connectivity which are provided by the appellant either directly or through its agent AIPL will amount to operating part if its CRS system through such subscribers in India and accordingly PE in the nature of a fixed place of business in India. Thus the appellant can be said to have established a PE within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of Indo-Spain Treaty.
: IT is not only the Ministry of Commerce which is struggling to sculpt a perfect substitute for the most popular exports incentive scheme of DEPB, even the Income Tax Department has been breaking its head against multiple possibilities as to how to treat the value of DEPB. And the very same question came before the Tribunal in a recent case. The merchant exporter had computed its Sec 80HHC benefits by taking into consideration the DEPB income whereas the A.O. did not consider DEPB income as eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. Let’ take a quick stroll through the various arguments and the recent judicial pronouncements which enabled the Tribunal to form a concrete opinion on this contentious issue.
the process of review under Section 35E of the Act could be resorted to for challenging the refund sanction orders passed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanction orders of the original authority were only consequential to the order of the appellate authority and any process of review should have been thought of against the appellate order rather than against the consequential orders of the original authority. The appellate authority’s order (which treated the refund claims as not time-barred) became final and binding on the Department in the absence of review and, consequently, it was not open to the Department to demand duty from the party on the ground of erroneous refund.
The income tax department has won its appeals against tea exporting companies when the Supreme Court resolved the prevailing conflict of views among the High Courts on the question as to at what stage Section 80HHC, deduction in income tax, should be allowed i.e. before the 60 : 40 apportionment under the 1962 IT Rule 8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income.
IN this batch of writ petitions, the prayer is that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be declared unconstitutional. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007.
THE facts of the case are on a Search & seizure operations carried out at the business premises of the assessee company on 18-3-02 notice u/s 158BC of the I.T. Act, 1961, served on the assessee it was alleged that the assessee that a sum of Rs.54,45,000/ – which was received by the assessee from its sister concern M/s PMC Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, as application money was nothing but the assessee company’s own money which was brought into the books in the garb of application money and the whole transaction was managed, sham and was a deliberate arrangement to subvert the interest of revenue.
If the assessing officer is going to make good an omission on the part of the assessee, he must be expressly authorised by law to do so lest he is hauled over coals for cosying up to the assessee. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Goetz (India) Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323), tersely dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the assessing officer (AO) not allowing a deduction which it was admittedly entitled to under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but which it had not claimed by even filing the revised return, is unexceptionable though it has come in for criticism from some quarters.
The IT Department acquired a property at Gandhi Nagar in Chennai when the agreement for sale relating to the property was submitted for getting the ‘No Objection’ certificate. This was done on the ground that the apparent consideration was less than the market value. The department made an assessment and found that the difference between the market value and the registered value was more than 15 per cent.
