8. We have carefully deliberated on the rival contentions raised by the learned AR and DR. The controversy here revolves around chargeability of interest income to the tax which even though technically accrued as per the mercantile-system of accounting being followed by the assessee, but the same was not accounted for as income in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein there was
Where the AO reopened the assessment to rework the book profits u/s 115JA and in an appeal against such order the assessee raised other issues unconnected with the reassessment and the preliminary point arose as to whether in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sun Engineering 198 ITR 297, […]
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee’s contention that when the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, “A” Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269.”
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,
