10. Section 194C relating to `payment to contractors and sub-contractors’ and relevant provisions read as under:- “194C(1)Any person responsibility for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and –
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
The First Respondent had filed a claim petition against the Petitioners before the arbitrator seeking a sum of over Rs.57 lakhs stated to be due under a hire-purchase agreement. The Petitioners raised a specific plea before the arbitrator that the claim petition was not maintainable as the first Petitioner had been declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR and that section 22 of SICA placed an embargo on the continuation of the arbitral proceedings against them.
Search & seizure action u/s 132 was undertaken at the assessee’s premises. Thereafter an order of provisional attachment u/s 281B was passed. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the search and the provisional attachment. HELD dismissing the Petition: (1) Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief
The contention of the assessee regarding allowability of foreseeable loss is accepted in principle, However, the issue is restored to the file of AO for the purpose of quantification and calculation of the said loss in terms of Accounting Standard -7, as the same has not been done.
Now, as per admitted facts of this case and as also noted by this Tribunal in their earlier order, the returns where assessee claimed interest were treated as non est returns. Hence, assessee had relied upon Hon’ble Madras High Court in the Narayanan Chettiar Industries case cited above. In this case the Hon’ble High Court was of the opinion that in respect of remission of liability,
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively.
The activity of marketing agents was brought under the tax net with effect from 1-7-03 when BAS was introduced; same services could not be classifiable under C&F Agent Service for any previous period as the scope of C&F Agent service was not modified when BAS was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994.
If apparently reliable material could not be directly used against an assessee solely because it was not collected during a Search of that assessee, a fortiori, material palpably concerning a third party with no connection with the raided party must be ignored.
In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the findings of Id. CIT(A) that activities undertaken by the taxpayer were in respect of production and export of computer software within the meaning of provisions of section 10B of the Act, especially when the AO himself concluded so for the purpose of section 80HHE of the Act. We are also in agreement with the uncontroverted submission of the Id. AR on behalf of the taxpayer that the taxpayer did not claim any deduction in AY 1996-97 and for the first time claimed deduction u/s 10B in AY 19987-98 and this being the 5th year, claim has to allowed.
