The only question is whether the guarantee commission paid to the bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility and loan from financial institutions for the purpose of machinery and equipments is revenue expenditure. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd (supra) was dealing precisely with the said issue, wherein, […]
The petitioner’s first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used by the petitioner for themselves, for BPCL as well as IOC and the observation of the Assessing Officer that there is a transfer of right in using the goods is an incorrect finding
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact […]
Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order.
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Chartered Accountants Reference No. 5/2000.
Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of the Act. The said powers are circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act. The Commissioner, nowhere has given the finding that the activities of the Respondent institution are not genuine one or that the said activity carried out are not in consonance with the object of the institution.
The present Appeal pertains to Assessment year 200405. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the reworking of the book profits by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Reimbursement of expenses against separate bills to C&F agents doesn’t require TDS and hence no dis allowance u/s 40(a)(1a)… ITAT Cochin bench held in the case of St. Mary’s Rubbers dismissing revenue’s appeal
