Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in Section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income Tax is not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of Section 2(28C).
Now a days, real estate industry is in boom phase and flat/apartment culture is picking pace due to economy, comfort, security and liquidity. Therefore, construction of apartment/flats is hot most segment and construction industry is adopting every new relevant and viable technology.
In the show-cause notice it was conveyed that the assessee had not registered itself with a view to evading duty and that therefore larger period of limitation would be invoked. It may be that such issue of allegation was not in so many words denied by the assessee.
The question is as to whether interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act can be charged for default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of advance tax, respectively, where the payment of tax became due only because of the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 1(h) to s. 115JB (2) of the Act, the amendment having been made operative retrospectively. It was due to the filing of the revised statement of assessable income,
Engagement for professional service or services simplicter which do not involve contract for carrying out any work itself, or a contract for labour for carrying out such services, is not within the purview of section 194C as it exists.
Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with ‘D’ for purchase of land on its behalf and development thereof by ‘D’. ‘D’ purchased land from farmers on behalf of the assessee through its agent ‘J’. In lieu of the consideration paid by ‘D’ for purchase of land, its account was credited by way of journal entries. ‘J’ had made payments in cash to the farmers in order to effect purchases.
The impugned circular issued by the Board came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court and it has struck down the circular holding that powers under section 119 would not empower the Board to issue clarification which would take away the exemption which has been granted by the statute. There was no reason to take a different view particularly when the decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be dismissed
ombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. 178 Taxman 135 Bombay held that in such situations the presumption would be that interest free funds were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances.
As we are witnessing the major changes in the Service Tax Rules/Acts recently. Under Reverse Charge Mechanism the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax instead of service provider. However in certain cases both service provider and service recipient has been made liable to pay service tax. The service receiver has to register himself under service tax and service receiver cannot claim general exemption limit of 10 Lakh rupees.
Now coming to the issue in question about the head of taxability, the provisions of Section 28(va) have been narrated above. Except from raising general argument about colourable device, lower authorities have not disputed the arguments of the assessee about applicability of Section 28(va),
