Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Discussion / Re: Internal scams in Income Tax Department
« Last post by pawansingla on November 26, 2014, 08:39:31 pm »
Does standing counsel bothers about the losing the case ? One of senior counsel loses most of the case in high court and then recommends it as fit case for SLP. The reason told by one officer of the department was that , he father is standing counsel in Apex court.
The best way to make these appointments transparent is first define the elgibility criretia, then go for written exams , and only then interview of limited marks.
Somewhere down the line, i feel department should have  adedicated full time and permanenet cadre of legal officers to defend their case in ITATs,High courts and Apex court.
Discussion / Internal scams in Income Tax Department
« Last post by brettlee on November 25, 2014, 10:09:51 am »
From last four years I am observing that huge manipulation is going on the Income Tax department in respect of the appointment of standing counsel before the High Courts. I have observed that ninety percent of the standing counsels are those who donít have any tax back ground but they have been given this privilege as they are kith and kin of the Commissioners or Chief Commissioners. Now I have decided to expose this game and will follow the appointments and complaint to the CVC and CBI regarding these appointments. Earlier the High Court judges were controlling the appointments however there discretion has been dispensed with by the Govt. This reminds me one recent incident. Recently I have applied for CAT panel. However, as usual I could not contact my well wishers who are also serving in department as a result of which CIT judicial has dismissed my application on the ground that I dont have any exposure in CAT. Then I found that in 2011, the then CIT Judical had appointed so many persons as standing counsels who were not having any tax back ground, yes it is true that the then Commissioner in order to oblige his seniors had appointed their relatives at the cost of important tax matters. But God is great I am happy that i have not been given the CAT panel because now I am helping the honest persons of the department in their CAT matters. I expreinced that the department itself is acting like a butcher on these honest persons harrasing them by using delay techniques. One very senior advocate of Supreme Court has also filed complaint in vigilance and pointed out that appointments happened in 2011 and 2012 are done in a corrupt manner. However till today no action has been taken against that CIT judicial. Now you people tell me whether it is not a war against this country to appoint people who have no tax back ground because ultimately the country is losing its taxes for providing experience to these panelist.
Discussion / Reopening u/s 148 -Direction by Tribunal
« Last post by rajul5234 on November 23, 2014, 10:33:50 am »
Guj. H. C. Guru ashish shipbreakers. TA 732 / 05. Dt. 5/11/14.

Held, Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give direction for reopening  to department in an appeal

R. K. Patel
Discussion / S. 32 AB, Debit in account
« Last post by rajul5234 on November 23, 2014, 10:31:14 am »
Cadila antibiotics. ITR 23/03. Guj. H. C. Dt. 16/10/14

Held, Amount debit in bank account of assessee entitles assessee to get deduction u/s  s. 32 AB

R. K. Patel
Discussion / s.11. Mutuality test. Club income.
« Last post by rajul5234 on November 23, 2014, 10:28:01 am »
Guj. H. C. TA 606 /05. Dt. 5/11/14. Junagadh Gymkhana.

Held, Card guest fees and guest charges to enter club borne by member does not break test of mutuality and exemption is not disturbed.

R. K. Patel
Vishal developers. TA 507 / 2014. Dt. 7/10/14. Guj. H. C.

Held, (2014 ) 1 S.C.C.  708 K. Raheja does not alter ratio of Radhe developers Guj. H.C. division bench decision.

Revenue was bent upon to refer the issue to full bench, but high court declined and rejected tax appeal at the threshold by a detail order.

R. K. Patel.
Discussion / Re: TDS u/s 195
« Last post by Sumit, FCA, Rjt. on November 20, 2014, 09:12:39 pm »
business connection is not determined by nature of transaction, but it is determined by, amongst other factors, presence of the foreign entity, in india.
Now, if it happens that the foreign entity has business connection or place of business in india, and through that it carries out business in india, than situation will be tricky.
Because next question to be determined is, whether the profit arising to that foreign entity from the transaction of import of goods by your client, can be said to be "attributable" to indian location? if yes, than even in case of plain transaction of import - principal to principal basis, one will have to visit AO for determination of attribuatable profit to Biz connection / PE and accordingly determine appropriate rate of tax for Deduction.
so it will of vital importance to determine, whether the foreign entity has nay biz connection / PE in india or not. Taxability and Deductability can be looked at thereafter.
Discussion / Re: TDS u/s 195
« Last post by ketanvyas1975 on November 18, 2014, 01:42:16 pm »
Thanks for prompt help. My confusion is regarding the concept the business connection. I feel that in case of purchase on principle to principle basis, there is no business connection and hence section 9 does not apply. Am i correct? is there any direct judicail pronouncement in this regard?
Discussion / Re: TDS u/s 195
« Last post by camanojgupta on November 18, 2014, 11:56:30 am »
The payment to italian firm is not liable to tax in india. hence no tax deductible under section 195
Discussion / Re: TDS u/s 195
« Last post by dhruvdua88 on November 18, 2014, 09:16:03 am »
Yes - basically what you're implying is that there is no 'business connection' and accordingly the remittance is not taxable as per Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.

Once it is determined that there is not tax liability as per the Income Tax Act you do not need to get in to the intricacies of DTAA and accordingly TRC will not matter.

Hope this helps.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10