The voluntary contribution received by a trust created only for charitable or religious purposes is to be deemed as income u/s. 11 of the Act. In case some of the objects of the trust are charitable and some of the objects can be termed as non charitable then such a trust will not be covered u/s. 12 because then it is not a trust created wholly for charitable purposes.
Allocation of assets of the firm to the retiring partners is the basis for invocation of provisions of Section 45(4). In the case under consideration, neither there was any dissolution nor other event took place that had an effect of allocation of exclusive interest in any capital asset to the retiring partners. In these circumstances, FAA was justified in holding that conditions of Section 45(4) were not fulfilled. In our opinion the firm or the continuing partners were not liable to be taxed under the head ‘capital gains’,
It is a fact that the company holds three board meetings consecutively on March 31, 2011, June 9, 2011 and September 29, 2011. It is also a fact that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the board meeting dated March 31, 2011. Even otherwise, the petitioner has requested the company to postpone the meeting dated March 31, 2011 to April 2, 2011, at 11.00 a.m.
Section 179(1) provides for a vicarious liability of the director of a public company for payment of tax dues which cannot be recovered from the company. However, such liability could be avoided if the director proves that the non recovery cannot be attributed to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company.
The giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious, unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.
Assessee has duly disclosed the gifts and there was no concealment in this regard. Only the assessee has failed to produce the alleged donor that the penalty has been imposed. I further find that section 271(1(c) of the Act postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.
Appellant have already paid service tax from their Modvat credit, the deposit of the service tax collected from the buyers would amount to double payment. It may be noted that the proceedings are for confirmation of demand in terms of section 73A of the Finance Act which relates to the tax collected by an assessee from the buyers, which is not required to be collected.
The only other issue is against the decision of the learned CIT(A) for treating sum of Rs. 1,37,49,302 being payment of living allowance by the Indian company to expatriates as fees for technical services in the hands of the appellant. The facts apropos this issue are that the experts of the assessee deputed for rendering services to HME and HCM received living allowances as per the agreement entered into between the assessee and HME and HCM. The Assessing Officer included this amount in fees for technical services and assessed it accordingly. No relief was allowed in the first appeal.
Provisions of Section 10A are beneficial provisions; the explanation given by the CBDT in Circular No.697 dated 23.11.1999 entitling the assessee to the benefits of S.10A; and also the legal position that the Act has not restricted the assessee from outsourcing of certain services necessary for producing an article or a thing, say, web maintenance in this case, assessee should be held as eligible for relief under S.10A of the Act.
Court finds that the petitioner has followed the required procedure as contemplated under Sections 100 and 101 of the Act for the proposed reduction of capital. The Court also finds that Article 8 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner-Company permits reduction of capital. It also appears that as there was no outlay of funds, the interest of the creditors is not adversely affected, therefore, the procedure as contemplated under Section 101(2) of the Act is not required to be followed.
