Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.
The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act
We have considered the, rival submissions, perused the material on record. In the instant case, rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR on 05.07.2001, A copy of the summary record of the proceedings of the hearing held on 5.7.2001 before BIFR- have been placed in the Paper Book. It has been held in the aforesaid proceedings para 22 as under:
The payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source.
11. The powers of the Tribunal emanates from the provision of section 254 of the Act and not from any other provisions. The provisions of section 132 of the Act considered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court only specifies the circumstances under which search warrant can be issued by the competent authority. Such provisions have nothing to do with the powers of the Tribunal
India Cine Agencies Vs CIT, Madras Income tax – Sec 32AB benefits – assessee converts jumbo rolls of photographic films into small rolls of various sizes – claims Sec 32AB, Sec 80HH and Sec 80I benefits – AO says it is neither manufacture nor production
Explore the Supreme Court judgment on Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala regarding excess Sales Tax collection. Learn how the retrospective effect of a notification led to a rate reduction, compelling the state to refund the excess amount. Discover the legal implications, the court’s interpretation, and the directive for the state to refund the tax with interest. Stay informed about key legal precedents and the principles of statutory construction.
Haleema Zubair, Tropical Traders Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)- The business activities relating to transaction of M/s. Poseidon Food Company unless otherwise proved cannot bring the appellant within the purview of definition of `dealer’. If she was not a dealer, the professional fees earned by her would not be exigible to payment of sales tax; only because the appellant happens to be the proprietress of M/s. Tropical Traders also.
Income tax – DTAA – Assessee is incorporated in Netherlands – engaged in airlines business of carrying passengers as well as cargo – gets licence from Airport Authority of India for cargo space – enters into a contract with a company to take care of cargo-booking and handling service on commission basis – While making payments to the outsourced company the assessee adjusts the rent payable to AAI – AO treats the rent deducted from the payments made to the outsourced company as income taxable to tax in India – Tribunal finds it inextricably linked to the cargo handling business for which licence was issued and such rent adjustment cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources – Tribunal has correctly understood the law – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
