Messages

it's true. there is decision of the ITAT Hyderabad in Teja Constructions Vs. Asst.CIT (2010)129 TTJ 157. It is discussed in detail the effect of non-obstante provision excluding application of sec.30 to 38  and also other issues.

it is a sale of eatables to satisfy the human  want. it is a sale under the VAT Act as sale/supply/service of eatables including beverages is treated as  a sale taxable under the State Vat act.

the local govt.body is a statutory authority and it is part of their objective and  obligation to remove garbage  and keep the environs clean. If the work is in the course of the above , it is not liable to TDS

what i could understand is that in computing wealth in the hands of the firm, whether capital or otherwise is a debt. There is no wealthtax liability on the firm since as per sec.3(2) of the Wealth tax Act, it is only the indl;huf and company and firm is not included. Obviously,because partners interest in firm needs to be valued. If it is stockintrade in the hands of the firm ,it is exempt. If it is  fixed asset ,value therein to be admitted  as per the procedure of computation of share of interest in firm.

trend  in the judicial approach is that all literature and  works related to religion is not charitable but religious. A reference may be made to the A.P. High court case in 295 ITR 437 wherein publication of books on epic literature like ramayana and bharatham is religious actiivty.

the officer can use third party material ,if it is relevant,only after giving an opportunity to the assessee for his objections or otherwise. If he uses behind the back of the assessee,the same is untenable.

this appears to be a hypothetical situation.  In any case assessee is caught by sec.44AB since aggregate turnover is well beyond the threshold . Sec.44AD is excluded.

the intention in inroducing sec.40(a)(ia) may be to cover cases , where the payees are not assessees. Otherwise, there is no reason in providing that  TDS of one year can be paid in later years only to enable the payer to get corresponding expenditure allowed. In other words if the payee had alredy paid  his taxes ,  making TDS again in respect of the income of the year in  later years . I think legal provisions cannot be that absurd or I  may say rediculous.
Perhaps to make this clear, the provision is brought under the Finance Bil 2012 to setright the anomaly.

the floor is again open now.

it is assumed that agrl.lands are within the notified limits and capital gain is taxable. Adverting to the issue  it all depends upon facts like what are the activiites or he has no other income other than capital gain.
There is one decision of ITAT wherein the assessee is an old lady and on similar facts, as that of your case,accepted the plea that the entire  sale amount including excess over regd.sale deed is capital gain since she could not have any other source of income.

Second proviso to Sec.143(1)(a) stipulates a time of  one year from the end of the financial year in which the return is filed. If the intimation is in time it is valid. If there is a mistake ,you may file a rectification letter u/s.154 in  E mode

the books and records are to be retained for six year from the end of the relevant asst year

thanks for your view. Film processing charges are not like any other and routine exp. It goes with the film cost . In the instant case raw film is also purhcased . I feel it must be treated as purchase exp. or direct cost that fall u/s.28.

A film distributor pays film processing charges to film labs. No TDS was made. The film labs have given confirmations that they filed returns of the respective year and paid tax. The issue for consideration
1.Whether abatement of TDS liability u/s. 191 will holds good for sec.40a(ia) because TDS relevant provisions are  Chapter XVIIB
2.  Sec.40a is a nonobstante provision  covering sec.30 to 30 . Whether proc.charges fall under the above sections or sec.28. If it is later sec. , sec.40a(ia) is not applicable

please give your valuable views with supporting case laws

the cap is reckoned for the whole year. this comes in the way of  making  invetment in one year although they  relate to two years.

the principle of netting is not applicable to the instant case

sec.54 or for that matter any  beneficial provision need to be complied with strictly and non compliance would only negate the claim.Perhaps  for a charging provison , inability or any thing beyong one's control are accepted.