Download Automatic Income Tax Calculator for Central & State Government Employees for the Financial Year 2011-2012 / 2012-13 and Assessment year 2012-2013/ 2013-2014.
CA Nitin Gupta IN CASE OF SERVICE RECEIVER IN CASE OF REVERSE CHARGE • WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE SERVICE PROVIDER, WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE POT = PAYMENT BASIS •WHERE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE TO THE S.P., WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE POINT OF TAXATION […]
24X7 Customs Clearance , Mandatory E-payment of Customs duty, E-helpline, Measures to Check Tax Evasion , Measures to Check Black , money, E-Filing of Returns, Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) , Payment of Direct Taxes Through ATMs , Online Tax Help , Communication Strategy for school children
The Court took into consideration the definition of ‘interest’ under section 2(28A) of the Act and also analysed the contents of two circulars issued by the CBDT, being No. 65 dated 02.09.1971 and the subsequent one dated 22.03.1993 (Circular No. 647)(sic), and confirmed the reasoning of the Tribunal that discounting charges did not amount to interest and was not subject to tax.
It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. The appellants have not stated any other valid reason.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
Very soon, companies in India shall be governed by a new piece of legislation to be known as Companies Act, 2013 which shall replace the longest legislation of the country, the Companies Act, 1956 which is now over 56 years old.
High Court of Bombay had upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra), on the ground that there was no substantial question of law involved. Even before Hon’ble High Court there was no question raised that all delivery based transactions have always to be treated as investment activity. Thus the decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High court in case of Gopal Purohit (supra), cannot be considered as a precedent for the proposition that all delivery based shares have to be treated as investment activity.
The limitation period prescribed under section 11B for filing the refund claim is one year from the relevant date. The term relevant date in the case where the duty becomes refundable as the consequences of judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate authority, appellate Tribunal or any Court has been defined in Explanation (B)(ec) of section 11B as the date of such judgment, decree or direction.
Learned DR contended that for providing the said services, managerial skill was also required and even the knowledge of local law was also used by the concerned service provider. In our opinion, merely because some managerial skill is required to render the services, it would not make the services to be managerial services as envisaged in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
