Notice u/s. 148 can be issued on a company registered anywhere in respect of income earned in India Posted: 19 Jan 2013 02:36 AM PST Notice to company registered in Sikkim - A notice under section 148 can be validly issued on a company, if it is in respect of income which is stated to have arisen in India, even though the registered office of the company is situated in Sikkim - Alankar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2000] 244 ITR...  |
| Loss set off U/s. 70 & 71 not permissible against income disclosed during survey Posted: 18 Jan 2013 09:11 PM PST Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that surrendered income during the survey has to be assessed separately as deemed income and set off of losses u/s 70 & 71 was not possible against such income.  |
| Deduction u/s. 80-IB(iv) available where assessee was having many housing projects but 'independence' among them not proved Posted: 18 Jan 2013 09:10 PM PST Assessee admittedly was having only one homogenous business activity that was construction and selling of flats. No doubt, it was having five projects, but the question is whether each of the projects were forming part and parcel of one unit or part of one industrial undertaking.  |
| Services essential for providing output services are input service Posted: 18 Jan 2013 09:04 PM PST It is evident that all the services are essential in running the business of rendering the output service 'Business Auxiliary Service' which is exported. If that be so, all the services come within the purview of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which defines the input service.  |
| ITAT asked AO to determine if payment for software service is FTS or Royalty Posted: 15 Jan 2013 09:04 PM PST From a perusal of the order of assessment, we find that all the submissions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and his findings thereon are only in respect of whether the payment made by the assessee to the consultant M/s. IBM Corporation, USA was or was not taxable in India as royalty...  |
| Delay in passing of review order by CCE cannot be condoned Posted: 15 Jan 2013 08:57 PM PST Apex Court in in the case of M.M. Rubber Co. (supra) of held that power under section 35E is a power of superintendence conferred on a superior authority to ensure that the subordinate officers exercise their powers under the Act correctly and properly and when a time limit is prescribed for...  |
