Assessee is engaged in the business of production and export of software from India to foreign countries and they are not in the business of providing technical services outside India, it is only producing and exporting software. The material on record clearly shows that except for these three years, rest of the certificates are correctly issued showing the amount involved in the production and export of the software at Clause 3(i). It is only in these three years certificates as against the Clause 3(i) nothing is typed and it is typed against Clause 3(ii). Hence, we are satisfied that there is a bona fide typographical error. The Chartered Accountant without carefully looking into those entries has issued the certificates, which has resulted in confusion.
The learned First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of U/s. 54F do not require the same sale proceeds to be utilized to claim deduction U/s. 54F.
In order to rationalize and simplify the process of settlement and also to curb the return/rejection ratio of the received claims, it is decided that henceforth amount of Provident Fund accumulation/ withdrawal benefit may also be credited in the joint bank account of the member, if member opts for the same. However, this is to clarify that the joint bank account shall be acceptable for the purpose only in case when the bank account is maintained with his/her spouse.
Renting of Immovable property service is one among the services which has huge implication as to the coverage of number of assessees and the quantum of revenue collection. The levy came in to effect from 01-06-2007. Since renting is not a service in common parlance coupled with power to levy taxes on immovable properties is under state list, this levy created lot of ambiguity and required extensive judicial examination. All these have left behind the landlords and tenants under a puzzled situation as to compliance of the same. Therefore this article aims at giving an insight as to the development of the judicial decisions and the statutory amendments and the possible measures to be taken to obtain relief and to avoid litigation.
The assessee has obtained a term loan from The Mahanagar Co–operative Bank Ltd., Fort Branch. It had also obtained an over draft facility. The bank debited the term loan account periodically with interest due and thereafter credited the term loan account with interest as received by debiting the over draft account in the bank. In effect, the term loan interest was paid by debiting the overdraft account. The Assessing Officer held this to be a conversion of interest liability into a loan or advance and, hence, not liable for deduction under section 43B.
While the decision to buy life insurance may seem simple and straightforward, the biggest decision for most first-time insurance buyers should be ‘how much’ rather than ‘why’. The amount of cover matters even more for buyers who have dependants: too little will place these family members under pressure in unforeseen circumstances.
Rule 66 is amended vide Notification No. VAT 1512/CR-61/Taxation-1 dated 1st June 2012 and As per the amended rule, the report of the audit under section 61 shall be submitted within 8 months from the end of the year to which the report relates. Earlier it was 10 months. It means the due date to file audit report for Financial year 2011-12 is 30th November 2012. This rule deals with procedural aspect of filing of audit report.
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The dispute is regarding assessment of income receivable by the assessee from the transfer of development rights. The case of the assessee is that granting of development rights was an integral part of development project which was one indivisible project and therefore, the income had to be assessed @ 25% as part of the development project. We, are however unable to accept the claim made by the assessee.
Ordinarily, where executant himself is unable, for any reason, to execute the document, he would appoint his kith and kin as his power of attorney to complete the transaction on his behalf. If one does not have any kith or kin who he can appoint as power of attorney, he may execute the conveyance himself. The legislative idea behind Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A is to curb tendency of transferring immovable properties through power of attorney and inappropriate documentation.
