The Supreme Court has ruled that the details of a person’s income tax returns and performance of an employee are personal information which cannot be divulged under the provisions of the Right to Information Act unless a larger public interest is involved.
Value Added Tax made in first opening in France in 1954. At that time it was not a full VAT system, since it was restricted to manufacturers and whole-sellers. The retailers and agriculturist were kept beyond its purview.
The main issue is with regard to allowability of foreign travel expenditure. The assessee claimed foreign travel expenditure at Rs. 20,35,971. As the assessee not furnished details of expenditure relating to business and pleasure trips, the Assessing Officer disallowed 80% of foreign travel expenses at Rs. 16,28,777. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow 1/3rd of the expenditure instead of 1/5th of the expenditure. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us.
The learned DR strongly defending the order passed by the CIT (A) submitted that the assessee has deliberately made excess payment to its AE with an intention to reduce its profit. The learned DR submitted that the CIT (A) after considering all aspects has correctly determined the ALP.
Learned AR argued that tax free securities were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade and hence the provisions of section 14A cannot apply to disallow any expenditure notwithstanding the fact that the interest income is exempt.
Under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, to give to the amalgamated company the benefit of the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, the Central Government must, upon the recommendation of the specified authority, be satisfied that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before the amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors, and that the amalgamation was in the public interest.
Where a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years.
The Companies Bill, 2011, on its enactment, would allow the country to have a modern legislation for growth and regulation of corporate sector in India. The existing statute for regulation of companies in the country, viz. the Companies Act, 1956 had been under consideration for quite long for comprehensive revision in view of the changing economic and commercial environment nationally as well as internationally.
We are unable to uphold the view of the Tribunal that it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to establish with the help of material on record that the share monies had come or emanated from the assessee’s coffers. Section 68 of the Act casts no such burden upon the Assessing Officer.
While considering/deciding the stay application under the said Act, the authority must (i) briefly state the case of the party; (ii) consider whether the party has made out a case for unconditional stay; (iii) the financial difficulty if pleaded be considered and (iv) in case the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that by granting of stay the assessee is likely to defeat the claim of the department then brief reasons for the same be indicated.
