Indian Tax Solution
Law on tests to be applied to determine whether income from property is chargeable as \"Income from house property\" or as \"Profits and gains of business\" explained. The objects clause is not determinative. Income earned from a shopping center is required to be taxed under the head \"Income from House Property\" (Chennai Properties 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation distinguished).
Severe strictures passed against the High Court for \"inconsistent decision-making\" and passing orders which are \"palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law\" and by ignoring \"large number of binding decisions of the Supreme Court\" and giving \"impermissible benefit to accused\". Law on condonation of delay explained. CBI directed to implement mechanism to ensure that all appeals are filed in time.
A disallowance has to be made also with respect to dividend on shares and units on which tax is payable by the payer u/s 115-O & 115-R. Argument that such dividends are not tax-free in the hands of the payee is not correct. S. 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of proof that expenditure has actually been incurred in earning the dividend income. If the AO has accepted for earlier years that no such expenditure has been incurred, he cannot take a contrary stand for later years if the facts and circumstances have not changed.
S. 194C read with s. 200 are mandatory provisions. The disallowance stipulated in s. 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C is one of the consequences for the default. Accordingly, though there is a difference between \"paid\" and \"payable\" , s. 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid. The contrary interpretation that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to cases where amounts are \"payable\" will result in defaulters going scot free.
Court cannot review decision to not exempt goods from Excise: SC
If the AO disagrees with the information/ objection of the audit party and is not personally satisfied that income has escaped assessment but still reopens the assessment on the direction issued by the audit party, the reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction.
-Under Explanation 1 to s. 32, the lessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of construction incurred by him but not on the cost incurred by the owner and reimbursed by the lessee.
The provision of a common facility is not technical services. Amount paid towards reimbursement of a common technical computer facility is not fees for technical services.
Section 67 of the aforesaid Act deals with valuation of taxable services and specifically mentions that the same does not include the cost of parts or other material, if any, sold to the customer during the course of providing maintenance or repair service.
Since no duty was paid by the respondent on upgraded reactors, they were not eligible for the benefit of exemption provided vide Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. They were, therefore, required to pay duty on copper coils as an intermediate product which was meant for captive consumption.
Entries in loose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers are not ?books of account? and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.
Meaning of \"compulsory acquisition\" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 explained. The fact that the assessee entered into a settlement with the Collector regarding the compensation amount does not mean that the acquisition was not \"compulsory\" if the prescribed procedure was followed.
Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary course of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries to prove that they are in accordance with facts.
If tiles are manufactured or produced after undertaking some other activities, the position would be different. A finding has to be arrived at by carrying out due enquiry and for that purpose appropriate exercise has to be undertaken. In the absence of that, a final conclusion cannot be reached.
The argument that as the shares are issued in the name of the Karta, the HUF is not the \"registered shareholder\" and so s. 2(22)(e) will not apply to loans paid to the HUF is not correct because in the annual returns filed with the ROC, the HUF is shown as the registered and beneficial shareholder. In any case, the HUF is the beneficial shareholder.