Messages

If one is seeking solution to the problem raised by the initiator of the topic, then I agree with Mr.Srinivasan.  I feel the CIT(A) should not be arbitrary in his order brushing aside the precedents.  I would feel that this is gross insult to the intelligence of the courts/Tribunal.

In my view a magazie cannot be treated as a software.  The magazine has limited shelf life like a newspaper.  Hence payment made for supply of magazine does not amount to royalty.  If any income is taxable in India then tax has to be deducted.

In my view Jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter.  The non-jurisdictional high Court's order in my view  is invalid.  The lack of jurisdiction is not a remediable error.

In juridicial precedents, though the order of the non-jurisdictional high Court is not valid, yet it will have a persuasive effect.

I feel the ITAT being highest body in fact findings, the ITAT decides on the basis of facts keeping in view the law.  In each of the case cited by my colleague and the one suggested by the CIT may be distringuishable on facts and hence the contradictions.  One comes to conclusions based on the facts.  The ITAT tries to harmonise the concllusions with the conclusions based on facts.  The ITAT also has to keep the judicial precedents in view before relying on judgements.  Recently I heard high ranking official openly admitting that she is pro revenue and that too in front of the Chief Commissioner. The attitude of the CIT(A) could be prorevenue and hence one cannot expect justice from them.  The appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) in many cases is only a necessary hurdle to file appeal to ITAT.

The tax is to be deducted only if the income of the non-resident is taxable in India.  Since you are making subscription for magazine to a nonresident whose income is not taxable in India no tax need to be deducted.  Supreme Court in GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 234 CTR (SC) 153 : (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) setting aside the decisions in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 227 CTR (Kar) 335 : (2010) 320 ITR 209 (Kar) and CIT (International Taxation) & Anr. vs. Sonata Information Technology Ltd. (2010) 232 CTR (Kar) 20 has held that most important expression in s. 195(1) consists of the words "chargeable under the provisions of the Act".

to express an opinion one need to go through the judgement of the Gij High Court  Please forward the same

Pursuant to the Delhi High Court judgement in "Court on its own" many circulars and instructions have been issued by the Board.  Unfortunately the instrructions and circulars do not percolate to the level of Assessing Officers and even if it reaches the Officers they do not implement it without incentives.  There appears to be lack of leadership in the senior officers and the juniors are not holden to them.  In the result one may make any number of rectification applications.  The applications are received in tapal, and then thrown into a dump of the concerned officer.  No rectification is maintained nor the applications are disposed off by the Officerwithin the stipulated time.  One may complain to the Commissioner, but to no avail instead it complicates the matter. 

Though the office timing is between 9.30 to 6.00 no one comes to the office except the Daftar Band before 11.30 and no one is available in the office during 1.00 to 2.30 allegedly the lunch time.  There is no one in the office after 5.00 p.m.  This is how the Department works and there is no one to enforce discipline.  There is total failure of governance.

Mr.Singhvi appears to be torch bearer of dishonesty and immorality and is deservedly the Congress Spokes person leading the flock of similar thugs.

If Supreme Court considers itself to be a government office, then the judges are justified in doing what they are doing.  The government offices are supposed to open from 10.00 to 18.00.  One one will hardly find the head of the department and other senior officials in their offices before 11.30 and after 16.00 hrs.  I can say this with my experience in the Income tax Offices in Mumbay. 

I AGREE WITH PAWAN SINGLA.  THE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GAIN PUBLICITY AFTER THE RAID MAKES STATEMENTS OF THE APPROXIMATE CONCEALMENT DETECTED BY THEM WHICH IS REPORTED IN THE PRESS.  WHAT REMAINS OF THIS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT IS WORTH MENTIONING IN THE SAME PRESS BUT THIS IS NOT REPORTED EITHER BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE PRESS.  IN MANY CASES NONE OF THE FIGURES GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS RETAINED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES.  THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE BANNED IN PUBLICISING THE RAIDS AND ITS TENTATIVE RESULTS.

How come a substitute was placed in Jail and Mr.Gupta allowed to carry his activities?  Surprising!

you have restricted your discussion to section43(5) and did not deal with Sec.73.  Without discussing the issues involved in sec.73 the discussion is incomplete.

I think in chemistry the function of a catalyst is to hasten the process of reaction without itself being absorbed.  Mediation may provide alternative methods of resolving disputes and that is required because the method adopted by the parties to the dispute is not workable.  Salt may dissolve in water, but does not react and no catalyst make salt to react with water.  Similarly if parties to dispute react to each other, then a catalyst could be introduced, but if they reached a stage when there is no reacation, one need to change the chemistry of the parties so that they start reacting.

It is seen that many assessing officers reject the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional high courts on the ground that the department did not accept that decision and that second appeal is not preferred as the revenue effect was low.  There is no way one could ascertain whether the statement of the AO is genuine or it is only a pretense.  Is there any judgement of any court which discourages this type of practice by the assessing authorities?

A public charitable trust has 5 trustees.  The trust is in existence for more than 15 years.  Some with a lot of money approaches the trustees who have become aged, that they retire from the office of the Trustees in favour of the five active and young trustees (referred to as Group) so that the trust could function more effectively .  As an inducement to the trustees the Group offers to pay them a particular some.  An agreement is entered into to this effect.  None of the Trustees were paid any remuneration at any time.
The question is whether the amount received by the outgoing trustees is taxable in their hands as: 
1.    As Capital Gains
2.   Gift
3.   Windfall

Whether the amount is  taxable in their hands at all?