-
Income Tax:
Validity of invoking provisions of Section 50C – investment in bonds in view of provisions of section 54EC - entire amount of sale consideration has been invested in Bonds therefore, provisions of section 50C cannot be invoked.... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Trust registered u/s 12A, 10(23(C) - application made for registration u/s 80G(5)(vi) – CIT could not deny the registration solely on the basis of one clause, which could not be acted upon in view of the restriction contained in other clauses..... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Relief u/s 119(2)(b) – return of rental income & TDS thereon filed late in year 2005 for A.Y.1998-99 to 2001-02 – issuance of one consolidated TDS certificate by bank cannot be projected as a reason since separate share of each co-owners is a matter of agreement between the parties..... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Deduction u/s 80IB - undertaking developing and building housing projects – assessees were entitled to the benefit u/s 80IB(10) even where the title of the lands had not passed on to the assessees.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Charitable Society - Clauses of the deed clearly state that the object of the Society is to propagate Non-violence and Tenets of Truth and to encourage universal spiritual uplifment. What is stated about the settlement of dispute is only incidental thereto and cannot be stated to be commercial in nature.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
The ‘total income’ as mentioned in sub-clause (5B) of Section 80G of the Act does not mean the ‘income’, as it appears in Section 11 of the Act. The expression “total income” and income have been used differently and has distinct application.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Undisclosed Income - it is the director of the company who had utilized his undisclosed income for and on behalf of the assessee. - Addition could not be made in the hands of assessee.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Eligibility of deduction u/s 10B of the Act- Assessee having business of software development located at Gujarat shifted its unit to Bangalore- entitled to the benefit under Section 10B of the I.T. Act..... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Capital gains - Application of income - ITAT is justified in holding that the obligation to make the payment to the sisters under the Will was a voluntary act of the appellant in the light of the agreement of Distribution of Assets.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Charitable Trust u/s 12A - charitable dispensary and medical/health centre - nominal fee charged - exemption granted u/s 80G would remain operative unless withdrawn..... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Determination of Annual Letting value (ALV) of property vacant during the year – Section 23(1)(c) – rent received or receivable from the property in question during the year was nil, the same was to be taken as the annual value of the property..... - AT
-
Income Tax:
If the persons to whom the consultancy charges have been paid are registered with IRDA, then they are to be treated as payments made towards professional charges and will be governed by the provision of section 194J. In any other case, where payment is made by way of commission or otherwise for soliciting or procuring insurance business by persons who are not registered with IRDA, then the same will be governed by the provision of section 194D. ... - AT
-
Income Tax:
MAT - reduction of income from book profit - assessee has not demonstrated that as per Schedule-VI of Companies Act, the impugned income is beyond the scope of profit of the company. By very adoption and inclusion of the said income in the profits of the company it has been affirmed that the same had come within the ambits of the "book profit". .... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Uncashed Cheques amounting to Rs 1,97,758 - there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. .... - HC
-
Income Tax:
TDS u/s 194H - The Dairy may have fixed the MRP and the price at which they sell the products to the concessionaire but the products are sold and ownership vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. The sale is subject to conditions, and stipulations. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship. The supervision and control required in case of agency is missing..... - HC
-
Income Tax:
TDS on bank guarantee commission - section 194H - It is not a "commission" as understood in common parlance. Hence not liable to tax deduction and the question of interest under 201(1A) does not arise. .... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Under the deeming provision of section 9(1) read with Explanation 1(a), any business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India.... - AAR
-
Income Tax:
Trading addition – Once net profit rate has been applied, no other addition is warranted in the profit & loss account.... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Charitable Trust – Reasons provided by CIT are subsequent event to the granting of registration. - CIT erred in not granting the registration u/s 12AA .... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Work Contract vs Contract for sale – purchase of product - product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in assessee company - provisions of Section 194C are applicable to the assessee.... - HC
-
Income Tax:
Disallowance - Advertisement and publicity expenses - merely because a third party is benefited by virtue of such expenditure, it cannot take the case out of the purview of section 37(1) of the Act ... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Once it is established that tax has been deducted at source from the salary of the employee then bar under section 205 of the Act comes into operation barring Revenue from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, the TDS amount has been deducted.... - AT
-
Income Tax:
Revision u/s 263 - The assessment order is totally silent and there is no discussion as to how this dividend income was to be given the character of business income for the purpose of set off under Section 72 of the Act - This rendered order passed by the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to that extent .... - HC
-
Income Tax:
A non-resident will not be liable to tax in India on any income attributable to operations confined to purchase of goods in India for export, even though the non-resident has an office or an agency in India for this purpose. .... - AT
-
Customs:
Seeks to impose anti-dumping duty on import of Coumarin, originating in, or exported from, the People’s Republic of China - Ntf. No. 12/2012 –Customs (ADD) Dated: February 8, 2012
-
Customs:
Anti dumping duty - challenging the final findings dated 24.11.2009 issued by the Designated Authority. - it is no more open for the appellants to challenge the final finding by way of appeal and only remedy available at this stage to the appellants is to approach Designated Authority in review proceedings under Rule 23 of Anti-Dumping Rules .... - AT
-
Customs:
Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority. - Ntf. No. F.No. 437/02/2012-Cus. IV Dated: February 2, 2012
-
Customs:
Amends Notification No. 39/96-Customs - Exemption to specified goods imported by Defence, Coast Gaurd, Deptt. of Revenue, Police Forces, HAL, specified ordnance Factories and for ATVP, IGMDP, SAMYUKTA, LCAP, SANGRAHA, DIVYA DRISHTI and DHANUSH Programmes. - Ntf. No. 05 /2012 - Customs Dated: February 7, 2012
-
Customs:
Corrigendum to Notification 14/2010 – Customs. - Ntf. No. CORRIGENDUM Dated: February 7, 2012
-
DGFT:
Amendment in Appendix - 30 A relating to Export Obligation Period under Advance Authorization/DFIA Schemes. - Cir. No. 96 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 Dated: July 21, 2012
-
SEZ:
U/s. 4 of the SEZ Act, 2005 - Set up a sector specific Special Economic Zone for information technology and information technology enabled services at Village Sholinganallur; Taluka Tambaram, District Kanchipuram in the State of Tamil Nadu; - Ntf. No. S.O. 200(E), Dated: January 31, 2012
-
FEMA:
Clarification - Establishment of Project Offices in India by Foreign Entities – General Permission - Cir. No. 76 Dated: February 9, 2012
-
FEMA:
External Commercial Borrowings – Simplification of procedure. - Cir. No. 75 Dated: February 7, 2012
-
Service Tax:
Ship Management Service versus Manpower Recruitment Agency - Short listing and selection of officer and crew, Issuing engagement/employment contract to officer and crew, Prepare and affect crew change's rule, Providing shore supervisor. These services specifically fall under 'Ship Management Services' which came into force on 01.05.06.... - AT
-
Service Tax:
Regarding explanation of ‘gross amount’ appearing in the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007. - Cir. No. 150/1/2012-ST Dated: February 8, 2012
-
Service Tax:
CENVAT credit - Service of transportation of employees to the factory is admissible for credit as input service under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.... - AT
-
Service Tax:
No service tax is payable for imparting Abacus training since recreational training is covered under the Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004..... - AT
-
Service Tax:
CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on the inputs services used at wind mill situated at Satara and credit availed at their manufacturing unit at Raigad - credit allowed..... - AT
-
Central Excise:
Excise duty on Jute Carpets - Waiver of pre deposit - Decision of Apex court in favor of assessee - order of Tribunal is surprising where tribunal wen on to distinguish the judgment both on question of facts as well as interpretation of Rule 3... - HC
-
Central Excise:
Cenvat Credit - demand is not payable on inputs or capital goods due to change in ownership when the same are not removed from the factory of production. ..... - AT
-
Central Excise:
Interest on Refund - section 11BB commences from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which an order for refund is made. .... - HC
-
Central Excise:
Once there is delay in payment of service tax interest is payable. - Finding that interest is not payable is erroneous..... - HC
-
Central Excise:
Availement of Cenvat Credit before receipt - Capital goods received on 22.12.05 credit availed in november - When the date of payment was 5th January, 2006, on this count, it does not make any difference that the credit was shown to have taken in the month of November or December 2005..... - AT
-
Central Excise:
erely because the fact of charging more freight was not being disclosed to the Revenue, by itself cannot be taken as a ground for invoking the longer period of limitation unless any evidence to reflect upon the assessee's malafide is brought on record..... - AT
-
VAT:
VAT / Sales tax - Transfer of document is one method and delivery may be physical also. Simply because the sales had not been effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods and the sales were effected by giving physical possession of the goods to the customers, it would not mean that the sales were taxable under the Act.... - SC
-
Income Tax
-
2012 (2) TMI 87
Expenses in relation to income not forming part of total income – section 14A – dis-allowance - dividend income earned during the year – assessee submitted that no expenses were incurred to earn the dividend income – A.Y. 06-07 - Held that:- A.O. is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to exempt income on reasonable basis. See Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs DCIT (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Therefore, matter is send back to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh - Decided partly in favor of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (2) TMI 86
Plea for condonation of delay – appeal filed before Tribunal - ex-parte order framed u/s 144 by A.O. confirmed by CIT - non-vigilance of AR - Held that:- When a person has a good case on merits, defeat of his claim on technical plea of limitation would ultimately lead to injustice. In the present case, AR was not vigilant and was not attending the proceedings since starting either before the AO or before the CIT (A) and neither filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal, whereas all the papers were handed over to him in time.Therefore, we hold that there was reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass order afresh. See The Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji (1987 - TMI - 40082 - Supreme Court)– Decided in favor of assessee. Similar facts are involved in the case of Sh. Lala Ram Choudhary. Hence the same is also remitted back to file of A.O.
-
2012 (2) TMI 85
Reasons to believe under 147 - Provisions other than ascertained liabilities not added while computing Book profit under 115JB - Invoking 148 after 4 years requires failure on part of assessee to disclose all material fact - Held That:- When there was no such failure on part of assessee revocation under 148 not justified.
-
2012 (2) TMI 84
Deemed Dividends - 70 laks was advanced to respondent/assessee - Revenue claimed respondent was registered holder thus beneficial ownership is inconsequential - Held That:- In view of Bhaumik Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd (2008 -TMI - 59371 - ITAT BOMBAY-E) for applicability of deemed dividends beneficial ownership to be established.
-
2012 (2) TMI 83
Power of commissioner to invoke section 263 - deduction u/s 54F was wrongly allowed – original assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) – capital gains – agricultural land sold in A.Y. 06-07 - amount deposited for purchase of plot before filing the return - ownership of the plot not transferred to the assessee by colonizer - non-construction of residential house – Held that:- Till the hearing of this appeal, no construction of the new asset has yet started, therefore the benefit of the exemption provided u/s 54F is not available to the assessee. The Legislation has specifically provided the period of three years, therefore, it cannot be enlarged to indefinite period even if non-construction is due to failure on part of colonizer to hand over the plot. Moreover, stipulated period of three years had already expired when the revisional jurisdiction by CIT was invoked. See CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar (2006 - TMI - 13259 - Madras High Court), Usha Gupta v. CIT (2005 - TMI - 13751 - Rajasthan High Court) Further, allowing unproved deduction/exemption renders the order of A.O. both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue therefore, we find justification in invoking the revisional jurisdictional u/s 263 by CIT – Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 82
Cost of Repair/ Reconstruction on tenanted price - Capital Expenditure OR Revenue Expenditure - Held That:- Appeal relates prior to the insertion of the Explanation to Section 30 by the Finance Act of 2003 with effect from 1 April 2004 in this view amount shall be admissible as revenue expenditure.
-
2012 (2) TMI 81
Unclaimed credit balances written back - Amount represented small credit balances out of advance received from supplier which could not be adjusted - Amount written back as period of limitation had expired - Salary, wages & Bonus amounting to Rs 59,088 - Explanation 1 to Section 41(1) writing of liability will amount to cessation of liability thus taxable however explanation was inserted from 1st April 97 and have prospective effect and not apply to A/Y 95-96. For Supplier Credit balance - same reasoning is applicable for the year under consideration. Uncashed Cheques amounting to Rs 1,97,758 - there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. Unclaimed Dividend - Dividend is appropriation - If it is not allowable as deduction excess cannot be taxed. Provision for doubtful debts - Provision was never allowed as deduction thus cannot be taxed under 41(1)
-
2012 (2) TMI 80
Non-deduction of tax at source - dairy business - milk sold to concessionaires – Revenue contending concessionaires to be agents and assessed difference between MRP of the product & purchase price to be commission – TDS u/s 194H - Held that:- In present case, concessionaire becomes the owner of the milk and the products on taking delivery of the same from the Dairy. He thus purchased the milk and the products from the Dairy and sold them at the MRP. The difference between the MRP and the price which he pays to the Dairy is his income from business. It cannot be categorized as commission. The Dairy may have fixed the MRP but ownership of products vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. The sale is subject to conditions, and stipulations. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship. The supervision and control required in case of agency is missing. It is irrelevant that the concessionaires were operating from the booths owned by the Dairy and were also using the equipment and furniture provided by the Dairy – Decided against the Revenue.
-
Customs
-
2012 (2) TMI 79
Confiscation and Redemption fine - Held That:- Petitioner shall pay 30% of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond - Respondent to release the goods - Petitioner shall co-operate fully.
-
Central Excise
-
2012 (2) TMI 78
Interest on Refund - Interest of ₹ 1.36 Crores rejected on the ground as was not admissible under Section 11BB of Excise Act - Date of refund - Held That:- In view of Ranbaxy laboratories (2011 -TMI - 206520 - Supreme Court of India), section 11BB commences from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which an order for refund is made.
