Dear Friends, I recently launched a website all new updates will be given to you now on this website only those who are existing subscriber to are requested to visit to suscribe to

Mar 17, 2013

Advance received against sale of land is not taxable in the year of receipt

Advance received against sale of land is not taxable in the year of receipt

Posted: 15 Mar 2013 10:11 PM PDT

No agreement has been signed in this year. The possession has also not been delivered in this year. The twin conditions of execution of written agreement and handing over of the possession have to be cumulatively satisfied in order to bring the case within the ambit of section 2(47)(v) read with...

S. 263 Revision order based on grounds not shown in show cause notice is not valid

Posted: 15 Mar 2013 10:00 PM PDT

Objection raised by the CIT in the show-cause notice issued under s. 263 of the Act was in relation to non-deduction of tax at source out of certain payments made by the assessee and the invoking of provisions of s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, in the ultimate analysis, the CIT has directed the...

Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) not applies to shares held as stock-in-trade but S. 14A applies

Posted: 15 Mar 2013 09:49 PM PDT

In our humble understanding, the provisions of Section 14A are indeed attracted whether or not the shares are held as stock in trade or as investments, even though the provisions of rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) cannot be invoked in such a case, and even though the provisions of rule 8 D(2)(i) are much...

CAG cannot audit Service Tax records of Private assessee

Posted: 15 Mar 2013 09:48 PM PDT

On a plain reading of Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, the said Rule does not empower the CAG to audit the accounts of any assessee. While Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A provides for access of any officer authorized by the Commissioner to any premises registered under the service tax Rules, for...

Ignorance of Law cannot be an excuse to avoid penalty & to extend limitation period

Posted: 15 Mar 2013 09:48 PM PDT

It is an admitted fact that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Works Contract services with effect from 1-6-2007 and the appellants did not get themselves registered with the service tax department from 1-6-2007. The ground taken by the appellants is that they were not aware of the

No comments:

Post a Comment