Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmental inaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.
It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction.
Issue is whether such a notification given on 22nd May 2009, thorugh which MCX Stock Exchange has been recognized, can be held to be applicable for the transaction undertaken in the assessment year 2007-08 i.e., after 1st April 2006. From the combined reading of clause (d) of proviso to section 43(5), Rule 6DDA, 6DDB and Explanation (ii) to section 43(5), it would be seen that the rules which has been prescribed are only procedural in nature,
Since no provision is made in the Act or the Rules for claiming refund of excess TDS deducted with respect to remittance to the foreign company, CBDT issued its circular No. 769, dated 6-8-1998 and made provision for granting such refund to the Indian assessee deductee under the following circumstances:
On a plain reading of the statutory provisions of section 54, it is clear that an agreement for sale or an agreement to sell itself does not create any interest or charge in such property. Mulla on ‘Transfer of Property Act’ clearly states that section 54 enacts that an agreement for the sale of land does not itself create an interest in land.
On going through the remaining object of the trust, read with the provisions of sections 2(15), 12A, 12AA of the Income Tax Act, and the case laws cited by the AR, we find that there has been compliance to section 12A as required under the provisions, so far as provisions of section 2(15) are concerned, we find that the amendment talks about preservation of environment.
The discrepancies brought on record have culminated into rejection of the books result could not wash away the fact finding insofar as the assessee continues to be a local authority which it was prior to Assessment Year 2003- 04. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee on the issue of the learned CIT(A) upholding the status of the assessee by the Assessing Officer as Artificial Juridical Person and not a local authority
Explanation-I to section 37(1) provides inter-alia that any expenditure incurred for any purpose which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. This provision is clearly applicable to the case of the assessee. In a nutshell, it is held that misuse charges and interest on misuse charges are not deductible in computing the total income of the assessee.
It is thus clear that ‘willingness to perform’ for the purposes of Section 53A is something more than a statement of intent; it is the unqualified and unconditional willingness on the part of the vendee to perform its obligations. Unless the party has performed or is willing to perform its obligations under the contract, and in the same sequence in which these are to be performed,
The entire transactions of purchase/sale of securities/shares through derivatives and later on dealing with those shares/securities will determine whether an investment is made or stock-in-trade is procured.
