Liaison work is not in the nature of any consultancy or advice. But only one of the temporary functions that was required for the functioning of the company. If a person does the activity of collecting of debts of a company that person cannot be considered to be doing management consultancy service though debt collection is a responsibility of the management. Based on such reasoning liaison work cannot be considered as “Management or Business Consultancy” and cannot be taxed under section 65(105)(r) of Finance Act 1994.
In the instant case the assessee seems to be quite negligent by not taking the necessary steps for filing the appeal within the time prescribed by the statute .The conduct of the assessee reveals that the assessee takes the condonation of delay provision as granted. The assessee did not care to submit any request for condonation of delay , even when it was brought specifically to his notice at the time of filing of appeal itself.
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 16.4.2004 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2001-02.
Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J. – The following are the questions of law raised by the assessee in the tax case appeal filed as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the Assessment Year 2001-02.
No GTA services if custodial rights not transferred to transporter : The terms of the contract showed that this was a case where the operator was responsible only for the vehicle and there were no custodial rights or responsibilities in matter of goods carried. Since the assessee was responsible for the goods transported, consignment note, which is a document of title to the goods, was not issued.
This is a Revenue appeal against the orders of the CIT (A)-10 Mumbai dated 30.07.2010. The Revenue has raised two grounds which are as under:
In This case ITAT Delhi held that Limit U/s 54EC of rs. 50 lakh Applies to Financial year not to the transaction. Court Further held that Cheque has to be issued within 6 months. Encashment of Cheque & Allotment of Bonds beyond 6 months is irrelevant.
For the purpose of claiming benefit of deduction of the sum paid against the liability of tax, duty, cess, fee, etc., the year of payment is relevant and is only to be taken into account. The year in which the assessee incurred the liability to pay such tax, duty, etc., has no relevance and cannot be linked with the matter of giving benefit of deduction under Section 43B of the Act.
Per Bench – Out of this bunch of ten appeals, there are various appeals of the assessee and the revenue for different assessment years against separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) VIII, Ahmedabad. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
The petitioners, who are the respondents in this application, have filed the company petition by invoking various provisions of the Act, alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement against the applicants herein. The petitioners are opposing the increase of share capital and allotment of shares on the ground that they were holding 50% of the shares in the Company and their shareholding was diluted by allotment of shares and their present shareholding is 21.83%) which is under challenge. The petitioners apprehend that if the respondents are allowed to increase its capital and allot shares, their shareholding will further get diluted.
