In the case of BCCI Vs. CST Hon’ble SC held that the activity of producing audio-visual coverage of ‘Indian Premier League’ cricket matches held in India by non -resident service providers would be liable to tax under ‘programme production services’ and BCCI was liable to pay tax under reverse charge mechanism.
It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. The present dispute relates to the failure of non issuance of TDS certificates by the tenant.
On the issue of share premium money and unsecured loan, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assessing Officer suffers from several defects as the Assessing Officer has not raised any question while recording the statement with respect to the credentials of the applicant companies
Issue which arises for our consideration is whether Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the appellant assessee to the seller at the time of purchase of the property in question must be construed as a cost of acquisition of the asset so as to be deducted from the full value of consideration received by the appellant assessee at the time when he had sold and transferred the property in question.
In further held that Once the assessee has been found to have made a business investment by way, of shares in related line of business, the said investment though held by way of shares in the said company cannot be subjected to disallowance under section 14A of the Act
The dictum laid down in case of Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. is that incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it is established that assesee has acted with malafide intention.
The principles of natural justice are those which have been laid out by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of an individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
The only dispute before us is as to whether the receipts were, in fact, Dharmarth receipts. The assessee’s stand in this regard is that it was collecting Dharmarth in GRs and gate passes, as part of charity; that this Dharmarth collected every month was being passed on to a charitable trust;
It seems CAs are under attack from all parts of the world for good or not so good reasons. Recently CAG in its report Criticised CAs for alleged Mistakes in Tax Audit Report and signing of Tax Audit Reports more than the prescribed limit.
In this scenario, the only issue is whether the amount of consideration received on transfer invested by the assessee in a flat constructed within three years would amount to construction of a residential house within the time limit of three years.
