Challenging the order,dated 02/01/2013,of the CIT(A)-20,Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.The assessee has filed cross objections. Assessee-company is an international airline engaged in the business of passenger and cargo transportation.
Requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
The petitioner, the wife of an assessee in default, is before this Court aggrieved by Exhibits P9, P10 and P12 by which the Income-tax authorities proceeded against her property comprised in Survey Number 354/17/8, Re-survey number 681/9; which also adjoins the property in which the petitioner runs a hotel.
Article 7(1) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands provides for taxing profits of the enterprise in the other state only to the extent they are attributable to the PE in the other state, adopting No Force of Attraction principle. With the above broad principles in mind we will now consider the facts of the present case and the rival contentions
Undoubtedly, the present case raises the issue of balancing the interest of the Revenue, and the interest of an Needless to say, the Revenue does have the right to realise the assessed incometax amount from the assessee. However, while trying to realise the said amount, the Revenue cannot be permitted, and has not been permitted by the Circulars mentioned above, to act like a Shylock.
Initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates.
Tribunal held that sale of SIM Cards/recharge coupons at discounted rate to distributors is not commission and therefore, not liable to TDS provisions u/s. 194H of the Act. Once, the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded there is no question for sustaining the penalty.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the revisional order passed at Ext.P5. The petitioner challenges the assessment made of the building constructed by the petitioner, under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 (Act for short).
This Court in Inder Singh Gill (supra) was required to answer the question whether for the purpose of computing total world income of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, the income accruing in Uganda has to be reduced by the tax paid to the Uganda Government in respect of such income? The Court while answering the question in the negative observed that it is not aware of any commercial principle / practice which lays down that the tax paid by one on one’s income is allowed as a deduction in determining the income for the purposes of taxation.
It is correct that the terms of partnership provided payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on capital of partners as well as remuneration to the working partners. The assesses, however, did not make payment thereof to the partners nor made any provision of liability in the books of account
