Step 1: Make sure you have received an intimation under section 143 (1) from CPC Bangalore for the E-returns filed by you for AY 2009-10 or later. Step 2: Carefully examine the intimation to see if the computation by CPC is correct even if different from what was expected by you. It may be that you may have computed tax liability or interest incorrectly. Take the help by using departmental excel utility available in e-filing website.
As far as trade advances are concerned, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of section. 194. On facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) collected the details of advances categorized into trade advances and processing charges. Though he restricted the applicability of TDS provisions only to cash advances,
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of supply of LPG to its customers. It supplied the LPG cylinders to its customers on lease basis and collected security deposits. The customers can return the cylinders and take back the security deposits. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the customers have returned the cylinders and taken back the security deposits.
In terms of the Council decision dated 14 July, 2011, following guidelines for conversion of CA firms into LLPs and constitution of separate LLPs by the practicing Chartered Accountants have been finalized which are applicable for conversion of CA firms into LLPs or formation of new LLPs by the members in practice of the Institute subject to the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008 and Rules & Regulations framed there under:-
As per the definition of ‘person’ u/s 2(31), a minor is an assessable entity even though his income is clubbed u/s 64(1A) of the Act in the hands of his parents. A minor is a person distinct from his parents and is also an individual. There is no bar in separately allotting bonds upto Rs. 50,00,000 to each such person. There is no mentioned limit on the deduction allowable to an assessee under section 54EC.(The limit of Rs.50 lakhs is ceiling on investment that may be made by an assessee and not a ceiling on deduction that may be allowed to an assessee). Thus, AO was not right in disallowing deductions in respect of bonds invested by minor children of the assessee by applying the Rs.50 lakhs limit.
The Central Government vide Notification No. 19/2012-ST dated 05.06.2012 has announced Date of Introduction of new regime of most awaited Negative List approach in Service Tax, which will apply w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e. service tax would be applicable on all services except those mentioned either in the Negative List or in the Mega Exemption vide Notification No. 12/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012.
NEGATIVE LIST OF SERVICES (a) Services by Government or a local authority excluding the following services to the extent they are not covered elsewhere: (i) services by the Department of Posts by way of speed post, express parcel post, life insurance and agency services provided to a person other than Government; (ii) services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel, inside or outside the precincts of a port or an airport; (iii) transport of goods or passengers; or
Please note that Hon’ble President has given her assent to the Finance Bill, 2012 and got enacted as Finance Act(No 23 of 2012) on May 28,2012. We have summarized various statutory provisions have been made applicable w.e.f. 28-05-2012.
The guarantor of a loan is liable to pay it if the debtor fails to clear it, the Supreme Court has ruled, while maintaining that financial institutions too cannot act like property dealers in recovering the debts. The apex court gave the ruling on an appeal by one Ganga Kishun, who had stood as a guarantor to a bank loan, raised by one Ganga Prasad, who had died without clearing it. Ganga Kishun had come to the apex court against the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to recover the loan arrears from him after the death of principal debtor Ganga Prasad.
Section 201(1) uses the expression ‘any person, who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of the Act…..’. Assessee’s stand was that there was no such requirement. As per the provisions of section 194C, an amount has to be deducted out of the sum in pursuance to a contract, at the time of payment/credit towards income-tax on the income comprised therein in terms of section 194C. When a particular sum is not income at all for an assessee, the requirement of making TDS is non-existent.
