Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Forum Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News What's New Calendar Imp. Links Database More...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

ACIT, Circle 4 (2) , Mumbai Versus Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and ACIT, Circle 4 (2) , Mumbai Versus Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo

Income from sale and purchase of shares - LTCG/ STCG OR business income - Held that:- Merely because the rate of tax has been reduced in respect of short term capital gains and long term capital gains have been exempt during the year by way of an amendment to the provisions as discussed above, that itself, cannot be a ground for the AO to depart from its consistent stand of treating the assessee as an investor and thereby to charge the income earned by the assessee from share transactions as bus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he intention of the assessee, while purchasing the share, is the important and guiding factor as to whether the same was purchased with an intention of investment or for trading. The facts of the case as discussed above, clearly reveal that the assessee had treated the shares as investments in his account. As discussed above, if during the mid of the relevant Financial Year, certain tax benefits have been given in respect of capital gains, that cannot, in any way, lead to an assumption or presum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion here that as discussed above, in subsequent assessment years the department has again accepted the assessee as an investor. It is for the first time that in this year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 the assessee had been treated as a trader because of certain tax benefits granted to an investor in securities by way of amendment in the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and subsequently for the A.Ys 2006-07 to 2008-09, the assessee was treated as trader.In view of our above disc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that:- For the years for which Rule 8D is not applicable and in the event of that the AO is not satisfied with the explanation/working given by the assessee, disallowance under section 14A has to be made on a reasonable basis. We restrict the disallowance u/s 14A in the case of the assessee @ 5% of the tax exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. - ITA Nos.5442/M/2008, 4475/M/2012, 3053/M/2011, 5303/M/011, ITA Nos.5441/M/2008, 2469/M/2009, 4476/M/2012, 5302/M/2011, ITA No.4366/M/201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Revenue s appeal in relation to assessee Suresh K. Jajoo in ITA No.5442/M/2008 in relation to A.Y. 2005-06. ITA No.5442/M/2008 for A.Y. 2005-06 3. The sole issue taken by the Revenue in this appeal is as to whether the income earned by the assessee from sale and purchase of shares is to be assessed as capital gains or business income. The assessee in the return of income claimed income from the share transactions as capital gains and set off of the same against the brought forward capital l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. He therefore held that the assessee could not be treated as investor in shares but a trader. He accordingly assessed the short term capital gains and long term capital gains claimed by the assessee as business income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] considering the treatment given by the assessee to the shares in the earlier assessment years observed that the assessee had consistently been accepted as investor sinc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O should not have disturbed the treatment given to the assessee as an investor only because the rate of tax in respect of short term capital gains had changed. He therefore held that since the assessee had consistently been treated by various AOs as an investor in past years and therefore to treat the assessee as trader for the year under consideration and denying the set off of carry forward loss was not correct and justifiable. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Suresh K. Jaioo 1. A.Y.1996-97 - Scrutiny assessment Order u/s. 143(3) passed by JCIT, SpI. Range-49 dated 24.12.98, accepts the assessee's position of being an investor in shares. 2. A.Y.1997-98 - Scrutiny assessment Order u/s. 143(3) passed by JCIT, SpI. Range-49 dated 31.1.2000, accepts the assessee's position of being an investor in shares. 3. A.Y.1998-99 - Scrutiny assessment Order u/s.143(3) passed by JCIT, SpI. Range-49 dated 29.3.2001, accepts the assessee's position of bein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-4(2), Mumbai. In the reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w,s, 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short term capital gain. But so far as the issue of assessee being trader or investor is concerned, the A.O. has not given any finding that the appellant is a trader but has accepted the position of the assessee that he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed by A.O. accepting the assessee's position that he is an investor. The CIT-4, Mumbai vide order u/s.263 dated 28.12.2005 held that assessee's transaction on sale of share were around 230 for total consideration of ₹ 56.18 crores which may be treated as business transaction and not capital transaction. The order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 263 dated 27.12.2006 by ACIT-4(2) held the assessee to be a trader and not an investor. The order u/s.263 of CIT4, Mumbai was quashed by ITAT vide or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 26.12.2007, ie. the same date on which the order for A.Y.2005-06 have been passed by the ACIT-4(2), Mumbai. In the reassessment order also, the appellant has been held to be an investor in shares and not a trader in share. The order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 26.12.2007, however contains finding of the A.O. that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant is a short term capital gain. But so far as the issue of assessee being trader or investor is c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order u/s.143(3) dated 26.8.2005, the short term capital gain of ₹ 42,98,683/- was assessed as declared by the as sessee and hence not t reated as income f rom bus iness or profession. The order of the A.O. was set aside by CIT-4, Mumbai u/s.263 and the order of CIT was quashed by ITAT as ment ioned above . Vide corrigendum dated 27.11.2006 it was clarified that in the ITAT order dated 31.10.2006, the assessment year should have been 2003-04 instead of A.Y.2002-03. 5. A.Y.2004-05 - Or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

resh K. Jajoo and Para 1.3.7 in case of Smt. Vimla Jajoo that upto A.Y.2004-05, Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and Smt. Vimla Jajoo have been held to be an investor in share by all the Assessing Officers whenever they made scrutiny assessment order u/s.143(3). The CIT-4, Mumbai for A.Y.2002-03 and A.Y.2003-04 in case of Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and for A.Y.2003-04 in case of Vimla Jajoo did pass order u/s.263 setting aside the order of A.O. but as discussed above, those orders of A.O. were found to be not err .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

short term capital gain has been reduced to 10%. (iii) In both the cases, Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and Vimla Jajoo, the treatment of A.O. of thei r short term capital gain as Income from business has got two effects - (i) the assessee is taxed at a higher rate and (ii) the short term capital loss of A.Y.2001-02 which is being carried forward now cannot be set off against short term capital gain of A.Y.2005-06. (iv) The loss which has taken place in A.Y.2001-02 was on account of similar nature of 534 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 was pas sed on 26.12.2007 by ACIT-4(2) , Mumbai , the same Assessing Officer who has passed the order for A.Y.2005-06 in case of Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and Vimla Jajoo exactly on the same day, ie. 26.12.2006. Despite large number of transactions leading to short term and long term capital gain of the assessee's, the A.O. has held both Shri Suresh K. Jajoo and Vimla Jajoo as investor and not a trader. (vi) When the events of past years like carrying forward of l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of this general rule have been succinctly explained in Shah & Co (HA) v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 61 624-25 (Born). In terms of this decision, while it is true that a tax authority is entitled to go back upon an earlier finding, such entitlement is hedged with clear limitations. If a given case falls into the parameters of these limitations, the tax authority would not be entitled to unsettle the earlier finding. Thus, in the following circumstances, a tax authority would not be entitled to unset .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

material evidence, CIT v. Kusum Bader (1990) 185 ITR 70 (Raj). (v) Where unsettling the earlier decision leads to injustice to the assessee. Without expressly stating that the above decision has been followed, the ratio of the above decision has percolated into a number of later decisions (CIT v. Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 299 (ker); CIT v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an individual and has been offering the income from sale and purchase of shares as capital gains even prior to 01.10.04. He has drawn our attention to assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2001-02 wherein the claim of the assessee of short term capital loss and long term capital .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

security transaction tax was introduced by way of Chapter-VII of Finance (2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. By the same Finance Act, Section 10(38), Section 111A and 88E were inserted bringing in a special scheme for taxation of trading and investing in respect of securities w.e.f. 01.10.2004. As per the said scheme, all the transactions of securities on stock exchange done on or after 01.10.2004 would entitle securities transaction tax. All long term capital gains arising on such securities were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tured into the share transaction activity of the assessee and treated the assessee as trader, whereas, in the earlier assessment years, where such benefit of concessional rate of tax was not available to the assessee, the assessee s claim of investor in shares had continuously and consistently been accepted. The Ld. A.R. has further brought our attention to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 i.e. subsequent year to the assessment year under consideration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the department. For the A.Y. 2012-13 also, the AO had accepted the claim of short term capital loss and long term capital gain of the assessee treating the assessee as an investor. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that the assessee from the beginning had been treating itself as an investor irrespective of the rebate/concession, if any, given subsequently to the investors in shares and securities. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that prior to the year under consideration, the assessee wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ency in its stand. By treating an assessee as investor in a year and a trader in another year and then again treating him as an investor in subsequent year would not only create uncertainty in the mind of the assessee but also disentitle him from the eligible claims. In the year in which the assessee would be treated as a trader, the assessee would lose the benefit of set off of capital loss of the earlier assessment year. Then by treating the assessee as an investor in subsequent assessment yea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. A.R. has therefore submitted that the assessee was essentially an investor and was required to be treated so by the Revenue, while computing the income from sale and purchase of shares for the year under consideration. 7. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the observations made by the AO with regard to volume and frequency of transactions. He, therefore, has contended that the profits earned by the assessee from sale and purchase of shares were correctly taxed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ating to the shares. It is also a fact on the file that by the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2004, by insertion of provisions of section 111A and section 10(38), the levy of tax has been reduced to 10% on short term capital gains and long term capital gains have been made exempt. Under the old provisions of the Act, profits or gains arising to an investor from the transfer of securities were charged depending on the period of holding of the said securities. Short term capital gains were taxe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gains and business income was at par. The issue of treatment of income from share transaction as short term capital gains or business income has in fact arisen after the amendment brought with Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.10.2004. It is an admitted fact on the file that prior to the amendment when the tax of short term capital gains, as discussed above, was at par with that of business income, the department has been consistently accepting the treatment of income by the assessee as capital gains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year but prior to 01.10.2004, the assessee was not guided or influenced by lower tax rate in case of short term capital gains as the rate for business income and short term capital gains was at par. The assessee, however, was treating himself as an investor and keeping the shares as investments in his account irrespective of the probable tax implication as there were no such tax implications as discussed above. The intention of the assessee, while purchasing the share, is the important and guidi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of a trader and not of an investor. The treatment of the investment in the account books of the assessee was also a relevant guiding factor. The AO has also not pointed out as to in what manner the activity of the assessee for the year under consideration had been changed from investor to that of a trader especially when the department had consistently been treating him as an investor. It is also pertinent to mention here that as discussed above, in subsequent assessment years the department has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment years i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 to A.Y. 2008-09 as investor. Though the principle of resjudicata is not applicable in income tax proceedings but the principle of consistency requires that the view taken in one year should be followed in subsequent years unless the facts or the legal position justify departure there from; reliance can be placed in this respect on the authorities of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Darius Pandole [(2011 330 ITR 485 (Bom.)] and in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [(2011) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making the disallowance under section 14A as per the provisions of rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 1402 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 18.06.08 had disposed this ground of disa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d computed a disallowance of ₹ 13,46,829/- u/s. 14A of the Act in addition to ₹ 107,181/- disallowed in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Honorable Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) rendered a decision on 12.8.10 wherein it was held that provisions of Rule 8D shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee filed a request for rectification before the AO to rectify the order giving effect to C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. of the assessee has further submitted that the application of the assessee for rectification order was rejected on 11.05.12 and the assessee immediately on 26.06.12 i.e. within the period of one month preferred the appeal against the original order of the Ld. CIT(A) realizing its mistake that the proper course was to file the appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and not the rectification application before the AO. 12. We have considered the above submissions of the Ld. A.R. We find that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aken but bonafide belief the assessee/applicant pursues a remedy before the improper forum and after realizing mistake he immediately files appeal before the right forum, then under such circumstances the period consumed in pursuing the remedy before the improper forum is required to be condoned. Further, we find that the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court on this issue which, though, has come subsequently to the date of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under consideration by way of applying rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. It may be observed that in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A(2) is not arbitrary or unreasonable but can be applied only if the assessee's method is not satisfactory. It has been further held that Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies from A.Y. 2008-09. For the years for which Rule 8D is not applicable and in the event of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e that the exempt income earned by the assessee was very less or not in proportion to the investments made by the assessee for this purpose. Under such circumstances the different coordinate benches of this Tribunal have observed that in such cases certain percentage of exempt income can constitute a reasonable estimate for making disallowance for the years earlier to assessment year 2008-09. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. 'Godrej Agrovet Ltd.' (ITA No.934/2011) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2007- 08) (Revenue s appeals) 15. The sole issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals is relating to the treatment of income earned by the assessee from share transactions whether to be treated as business income or capital gains. In view of our findings given above while deciding the Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. These appeals of the Revenue are therefore hereby dismissed. ITA No.5303/M/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 (Revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owance of ₹ 7,56,556/- made by the AO under section 14A of the Act. 18. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed that the AO had made the disallowance as per rule 8D without taking into consideration the fact that the assessee itself in its computation of income had added back certain expenses debited to profit & loss account and thus had never claimed the expenses amounting to ₹ 35,48,740/- and ₹ 24,368/-. Similarly, the securities transaction tax amo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpenditure and further that disallowance can not be made more than the expenditure claimed. Considering the facts of the case and the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also. This ground of the appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 19. In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. 20. Now coming to the appeals in relation to the assessee Smt. Vimala S. Jajoo. ITA No.2469/M/2009 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue s appeal) 21. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot fulfilled. The assessee carried out the matter by way of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 22. However, the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 18.06.08 failed to decide this issue under consideration. The assessee moved a rectification application under section 154 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. The Ld. CIT(A) in the rectification application considered the issue and decided the same by observing as under: 3.2 The appellant submitted that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cidental to the business. The appellant has deposited a sum of ₹ 10,50,000/- as deposit with Calcutta Stock Exchange out of which ₹ 7,50,000/- was towards Base Minimum Capital (BMC) and Settlement Guarantee Fund which was forfeited/ utilized towards payment crisis during 2001. 3.4 The deposit was made in the course of business for the purpose of business of the appellant and the forfeiture/ utilization of the sum towards payment crisis by Calcutta Stock Exchange has happened in the c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

  ↓     Latest Happening     ↓  

Forum: GST rates on mobile recharge business

Forum: Cess paid instead of SGST

Circular: Constitution of National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) under GST-reg.

Forum: import purchase

Highlight: Sharing of expenses - BAS - promotion of business of group companies - sharing of expenditure for common facilities cannot be treated as service by one to another in such arrangement.

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input credit of gst paid on urd

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

Circular: Certain Clarifications sought on Construction Services provided in the Real Estate Sector reg.

Forum: transfer of shares

Forum: Input tax credit

News: Anti-dumping duty on import of bus/truck tyres from China

News: Fast-track GST refund, else ₹ 65K cr may be stuck: Exporters

Highlight: It is open to the Settlement Commission to use best judgment in arrival of the figure. Nonetheless it has to explain the manner in which the best judgment figure has been arrived at by the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - advances given to societies - in the absence of legal right of the assessee in the said society the amount advanced cannot be treated as deemed income.

Highlight: When electrical installations are treated as plant and machinery the depreciation has to be allowed @ 25% as per provisions contained u/s 32

TMI Note: Capital Gain - transfer of right in the land or transfer of land itself - addition u/s 50C - Harassment to the honest tax payers

Highlight: Option to avail composition scheme under GST by electronically filing an intimation in FORM GST CMP-02 and FORM GST ITC-03 upto 30-9-2017 - See Rule 3(3A)

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 11 to 13.

Highlight: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability - CBDT issues draft notification

TMI Note: Certain ICDS provisions are inconsistent with judicial precedents. Whether these judicial precedents would prevail over ICDS.

Highlight: Provisions of ICDS shall prevail w.e.f. AY 2017-18 to the transactional issues dealt therein over earlier judicial pronouncements.

Notification: Levy of anti dumping duty on New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16 originating in, or exported from China PR

News: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability

TMI Note: In case of conflict between ICDS and other specific provisions of the Income-tax rules, 1962 governing taxation of income like rules 9A, 9B etc. of the Rules, which provisions shall prevail.

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - seller refused to respond - notice would not be interfered with - HC

Highlight: Exemption u/s 11 - education activities - transport and hostel facilities surplus cannot be considered as business income of the assessee society

News: Draft Notification for insertion of new rule 39A in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 comments and suggestions-reg.

Highlight: Genuineness of labour wages expenses, embroidery charges, fabrication expenses etc. - getting work done through small workmen who do not have any permanent place of residence - disallowance of ad hoc expenditure deleted.

Highlight: Project import - Since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated - Redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 112 (a) - CHA - Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences

Highlight: Import of services - GST - The fact that those services were received outside India will not change the fact that the services have been paid for by the beneficiary appellant, who is located in India. - Demand confirmed.

Notification: SEZ for IT/ITES at Madhurwada Village, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh - denotified.

Highlight: Merely because payment is received in Indian rupee, it cannot be said that payment against export has not been received in convertible foreign exchange.

Highlight: Merely vehicle numbers was not mentioned on the invoices cannot be the reason to deny Cenvat Credit

Highlight: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version