Where the assessee was an Indian company and more than 51% of its equity share capital was held by a German company (Daimler Benz AG) and pursuant to an offshore merger the said shares came to be held by another German company (DaimlerChrysler AG) and there being a change of more than 51% of the beneficial interest in the shares, the question arose whether section 79 of the Act (pre- amendment)
It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s). For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.
There was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view of the divergent views, of the various High Courts, there was a bona fide doubt as to whether or not such an activity amounted to manufacture. This being the position, it cannot be said that merely because the appellants did not take out a licence and did not pay the duty the provisions of Section 11A got attracted.
Rule-2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules does not require that service has to be rendered at the factory of the manufacturer for the purpose of eligibility for service tax credit. Therefore the stand of the revenue that since the service was provided at the buyer’s premises credit is not admissible cannot be accepted. What has to be examined is whether the service provided is in or in relation to manufacture.
THE Supreme Court today simply dismissed the much-hyped USD two billion Vodafone capital gains tax case at the admission stage itself. Before rejecting the SLP, the Bench asked the assesee – why did they not furnish the copy of their original agreement to the Court and also to the Revenue? In reply the assessee spoke about their delayed offer and promised to make the same available any time.
Everything revolves around clause (iii) of section 32(1). The said clause provides that in case any of the assets specified therein on which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i), is sold, discarded, demolished, and if the monies payable fall short of the w.d.v, such shortfall will be allowed
38. First and foremost rule of construction of interpretation is that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, the said enactment cannot be construed to have retrospective operation and when amendment relates to a procedural provision results into creating a new disability or obligation and which imposes new duty in respect of transactions already completed,
In the instant case, the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs. 98,000 was received by him as gift from `M’ on account of love and affection by two drafts. Indeed, the amount of Rs. 98,000 was credited in the account books of the assessee for the previous year. `M’ appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and his statement was recorded
5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. In our considered view, the gifts so received by the assessee or his grandsons could not be said to be genuine. The reasons are that in all these cases, the donors are persons of low income group and do not have any capital or asset. There is no evidence on record to show how they build up capital.
When the legislature has categorically defined the purposes like religious and charitable and if the assessee-society is engaged as per their objects in mixed activities, which are partly charitable and partly religious, it cannot be said that section 11(1)(a) does not contemplate such situation.
