CIT V/s. CARGIL GLOBAL TRADING I. P. LTD. Payment of ‘interest’ presupposes borrowing of money or incurring of debt. Discounting of Bill of Exchange does not involve borrowing of money or incurring of debt. The Bill of Exchange were acquired by the purchaser at a discounted price and there was no debt or obligation incurred by the Taxpayer in favor of the purchaser of the Bill of Exchange.
Expenditure on fully convertible debentures deductible, Export Sales Income Source cannot be said to be located or situated outside India . It is well settled that expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of debentures or obtaining loan is revenue expenditure. Reference in this connection may be made to the leading judgment of the Supreme court in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, (1966) 60 ITR 52. The question before us however, is whether it is a debenture issue or an issue of share capital involving the strengthening of the capital base of the company.
Sec. 194H – Ad agencies are not agent of newspaper; hence TDS is not required to be deducted on commission paid to such agencies. Where tax has not been deducted at source, the short deducted tax cannot be realised from the deductor and the liability to pay such tax shall continue to be with the assessee direct, whose income is to be charged and a person who fails to deduct the tax at source, at best is liable for interest and penalty only. The above issues thus, are decided in favour of the petitioner. Sec. 194H – Ad agencies are not agent of newspaper; hence TDS is not required to be deducted on commission paid to such agencies
The first question that we have to consider is whether an agent of a principal who is also a dealer under the Act is entitled to the same rights as his principal has under the Act. Under the general law the agent merely represents his principal. Therefore, while functioning within the scope of the agency he can exercise all the rights which his principal could have exercised. In fact, in the case of an ordinary agency, the agent merely acts for his principal. This provision must hold good even under the Madras General Sales Tax Act unless otherwise provided therein.
An applicant may, either before or after the institution of prosecution, make an application under sub-section (2) of section 9A of Excise Act, made applicable to service tax vide section 83 of the Act, in the form appended to these rules, to the compounding authority to compound the offence. Where an offence under the Act has been committed at more than one place falling under the jurisdiction of more than one compounding authority, then the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over such place where the amount of service tax evaded is more than the others, shall be the competent authority.
The following assessees have to file compulsorily e return only: – Limited Companies – Compulsory Audit Cases – from A.Y. 2012-13 Individuals/HUFs having Total Income above Rs. 10 Lakhs and assessees who have got foreign assets. To be filed with digital signature only for Limited Companies and for others whose accounts are audited u.s. 44 AB. If filed without digital signature the acknowledgement in Form V duly verified is to be sent to CPC within 120 days by ordinary or speed post.
The residential property market in India, particularly in the Tier I & II cities, has remained sluggish for the past 12 months, with significantly lower sale volumes, especially when compared to the high absorption rates of 2010. Home loan interest rates now seem to be declining from their cyclical highs but unforeseen tax levies have come at a time when the industry is facing its moment of reckoning.
Automated Form 16 Preparation Software which can prepare at Form 16 of 50 Employees from the details of 24Q Annual Return Form. Master Form-16 New Financial Year 2012-13 / Assessment Year 2013-14 Master Form-16 New Financial Year 2011-12 / Assessment Year 2012-13
In the present case, the land owned by the assessee comes within the purview of urban area and the assessee is carrying on agricultural activities on the same. There is nothing on record to show that construction of building on assessee’s land is prohibited.
In instant case, the Assessing Officer had proposed to tax the amount as capital gains, as against the assessee’s claim that the same is not taxable. Accordingly, having recorded the fact that the assessee otherwise qualified for such set off, the set off should not have been disallowed on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. He maintained that the assessee was well within her right to make claims during the assessment proceedings and it does not amount to filing revised computation.
