As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned SDR in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. (supra) I find that the issue involved in the: case was the issue therein the show cause notices were issued prior to 10.05.2008, i.e. on 17.10.2005 invoking the provisions of sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for imposition of penalty.
We all know that the Govt. has launched a new website of Income Tax E-filing. Have you seen Form 26AS of well-known persons like Ambanis, Tatas, Deols etc? Earlier it was not possible for all to see this, but now on new I T E-filing website it is possible for all CAs.
The question of concealment of income and whether the revised return was filed voluntarily or not is a question of fact to be examined and decided upon the facts and circumstances of the each case and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Tribunal to merely rely on earlier orders where this issue was considered and penalties were cancelled.
With issue of various circulars, cost audit orders and notifications with regard to Cost Accounting, the MCA has set the stage for collection of the authentic information (duly approved by Bard of Directors and verified by a Cost Accountant) with regard to various industries for use by various Ministries.
Arrears of salary and other benefits payable to employees, is not covered by Section 43-B at all. Such liabilities are not contributions to provident fund, superannuation or any other fund or plan which the employer is obliged to extend to its employees to fulfill its statutory or contractual obligations. The character of the amounts in this case is pure and simple arrears of wages, which were directed to be paid as a result of wage revision exercise mandated by an award.
The Tribunal made a limited remand to the lower authorities to determine the exact nature and quantum of brick work which would entitle the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 37 which is limited to Rs. 2.75 crores.
From a reading of section 10A(7A), it is clear that its provisions apply to a situation where an undertaking whose income is deductible under section 10A is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the end of the specified 10 years. In the present case the STPI undertaking of the assessee stands transferred in a scheme of demerger before the completion of the specified period and, therefore, provisions of section 10A(7A) apply.
Assessee was engaged in the speculation transaction of sale and purchase of units without taking delivery and the account was settled by crediting the difference. The Tribunal after considering section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 observed that no property in the said units passed on to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee never acquired the property in the units as the units contracted to be bought were future unascertained goods. Similarly, it could not pass on the property to the party to whom the units were contracted and therefore, there was no ‘sale’ or ‘turnover’ effected by the assessee in the legal sense for the purposes of getting the accounts audited under section 44AB.
The term ―Finance‖ is often understood as being equivalent to ―money‖. However, finance exactly is not money; it is the source of providing funds for a particular activity. Providing or securing finance by itself is a distinct activity or function, which results in Financial Management, Financial Services and Financial Institutions.
The duty imposed by the Act upon the tax payer is to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessee ; he is not required to inform the Income-tax Officer as to what legal inference should be drawn from the facts disclosed by him nor to advise him on questions of law. Whether on the facts found or disclosed, the company was a dealer in shares, may be regarded as a conclusion on a mixed question of law and fact and from the failure on the part of the company to disclose to the Income-tax Officer this legal inference, no fault may be found with the company
