The Tribunal is not authorized to extend stay of demand beyond maximum period of 365 days. The decision of Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days amounted to contravention of provisions of the law.( Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and B. Fouress Private Limited v. CIT (ITA. No. 160&161/2012)]
While the gift is given by a person to another person who is personally related to him, the remission of trading liability takes place in business relationships. Normally, the remission of trading liability takes place only due to adverse business situation faced by a business concern.
Even though assessee is following the cash system of accounting, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax. v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 relied on by the Counsel before the Bench that mere advance received does not partake the character of income, it is necessary to examine whether the advances are in the nature of revenue receipt or not. Not only that the amounts accrued to the applicant out of the advance received in the assessment year 2005-06 were already transferred to professional income and were assessed as such.
Finance Act, 1992 made suitable amendments to the Wealth Tax Act and sec. 2(ea)(v)(b) defines “urban land”. But it does not clearly explain the status of agricultural lands situated in urban areas. In spite of that, the income tax authorities were giving exemptions to such lands till recently. This was evidenced by a document downloaded from that National Website of the Income Tax Department of India, a copy of which is attached. The said document which showed the Tax Obligation under Wealth Tax Act, clearly stated by a note “Agricultural land situated in urban area is not liable to wealth-tax”. This html document was downloaded on 06/05/2010. But, subsequently, this document has been removed from the Website. Quite coincidentally, the tax authorities have commenced taxing such urban agricultural lands citing that the Act does not exempt such lands.
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
If the revenue is to reply upon some documents for some part of them to claim that the documents reveal some undisclosed income of the assessee which has escaped tax and is earned during the block period, at the same time not giving same importance to the other parts of the documents, but understanding the other clauses by way of inference or on a logic attributing certain motives to the assessee, it is not a proper way of reading the document, assuming that it is relatable to the search and has a link to the search.
It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.
As per the Finance Bill, 2012, of Govt. of India, there have been vast changes in the taxation provisions relating to Service Tax. As per the new provisions, services of all types unless these have been specifically exempted in the negative list ( Vide Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax Dated 20th June, 2012) , shall become chargeable to service tax. As a consequence, domain registration charges have also become chargeable to service tax.
Former Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in the Budget for 2012-13, had announced introduction of the Rajiv Gandhi equity scheme under which 50% tax deduction would be provided to retail investors with annual income less than Rs 10 lakh. Under the proposed scheme, the investors would be allowed to invest up to Rs 50,000 in a year with a lock-in period of 3 years.
