As far as the expression ‘gratuity’ is concerned, there is no definition of what ‘gratuity’ is, even under the Payment of Gratuity Act; yet, a monetary relief to an employee at the time of his retirement or termination of service is treated as ‘gratuity’.
Where the element of service has been declared and brought to tax vide notification dated 6 June 2012, by which Service tax is levied on 40% of the billed value in restaurant, no VAT can be imposed thereon on such amount. Copy of the decision is enclosed herewith.
The element of factual possession and agreement are contemplated as transfer within the meaning of the aforesaid section. When the transfer is complete, automatically, consideration mentioned in the agreement for sale has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of income
The facts of this case are that the petitioner lost its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on 20.11.2013. The revenue issued notice under Section 221 for determined demand amounts due for the AY 2007-08, which was subject matter of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals).
Deposits or advances given to the parties which was written-off latter in the scheme of amalgamation, were neither a capital assets nor there was any transfer, thus no capital loss is allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent year. Thus held that irrecoverable advances written-off are not a transfer and the loss cannot be claimed as capital loss.
Bombay HC dismisses writ filed by Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association and upholds validity of service tax levy on air-conditioned restaurants serving liquor u/s 65(105)(zzzzv) of Finance Act.
We are reproducing below the CCI order dated 28.02.2014 in the case of Mr.Arun Anandagiri V/s. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) , Case No. 93/2013 in which CCI orders to investigate if ICAI has contravened provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 in excercise of its non-regulatory function of organising CPE Seminars and restricting the same only to itself and its organs.
Rajasthan High Court held that the CBDT had clearly provided that prescribed limit of jewellery will not be seized, it would mean that taxpayer, found with possession of such jewellery, will also not be questioned about its source and acquisition.
Issue for consideration is in relation to allowing deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of the whole of the amount invested by the assessee in the purchase of residential house. The assessee purchased residential property at C-602, The Residency, Ardee City, Gurgaon in joint name with his wife Smt. Ritu Verma and claimed deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- invested in residential property.
Hon’ble Delhi HC has held in the case of ‘Bharti Gupta Ramola Vs. CIT’ that For computing holding period of asset both date on which asset is acquired & date on which said asset is sold or transferred are not to be excluded.
