Messages

If the demand is not disputed, why don't you pay it off and stop further interest from accruing. Penalty will not be levied for a delay of a couple of days.

Your best bet is to get hold of this book "Media & Entertainment Industry". I've had a look at it and it has a wealth of information. You can get the ordering details from here

http://www.itatonline.org/info/index.php/book-release-media-entertainment-industry/

Apart from what is stated by me earlier you may refer to sec.196.  Since the income of MMRDA and CIDCO etc. is not taxable under sec.10 no tax is deductible.

Sir, S. 196 reads as follows:

Interest or dividend or other sums payable to Government, Reserve Bank or certain corporations.

196. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, no deduction of tax shall be made by any person from any sums payable to—

               (i)   the Government, or

             (ii)   the Reserve Bank of India, or

            (iii)   a corporation established by or under a Central Act which is, under any law for the time being in force, exempt from income-tax on its income, or

            (iv)   a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10,

where such sum is payable to it by way of interest or dividend in respect of any securities or shares owned by it or in which it has full beneficial interest, or any other income accruing or arising to it.]

For the section to apply, the corporation should be "exempt from income-tax". Sadly, MMRDA & CIDCO are not exempt.

Regards,

Probal.

The answer is in the affirmative because the Manger is performing an official/ statutory function. There is no "conflict of interest" if that is what you have in mind.

Regards,

Probal.

Gujarat high court has not only admitted writs  but also stayed the operation, impplementation and execution of assessment orders corelateable to dissallowance u/s 40 a ( ia).

Matters from across the country on this issue are transferred to supreme court on  transfer petitions preferred by inion of india at delhi.

Where is this Sir? I am not aware of this. Can you please post some details.

[Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin][url]Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin[/url]]

It would depend on whether the amount was received for user of goodwill or for transfer of goodwill.

Goodwill is a capital asset and so an amount received for transfer of goodwill will be a capital receipt as held in Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin][url]Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin[/url] [1979] 117 ITR 26 (ALL.) (http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DitTaxmann/incometaxacts/2007itact/%5B1979%5D117ITR0026%28All%29.htm)

On the other hand, if a sum is received as rent for user of goodwill then it will obviously be a revenue receipt.

In what context? If you are a trader in live stock, then it will be your stock-in-trade. If you are using it as a capital asset (e.g. farmer or bullock cart owner), then it will be a capital asset though you are not entitled to claim depreciation thereon.

Probal.

@subodh and @kondapalli, please note Explanation 1 to 2(1A) (which defines agricultural income) which reads as follows:

"Explanation 1. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that revenue derived from land shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of this section"

Section 2(14) defines "capital asset" to mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include—

(iii)  agricultural land in India, not being land situate—

    (a)  in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality46 (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population46 of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year ; or

    (b)  in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette;"

So a gain arising on transfer of agricultural land situated within the prescribed limits is chargeable to tax.

I don't know why we tend to denigrate ourselves at every opportunity. Calling ourselves "slaves" is not in good taste. Patriotism does not mean that we take a swing at the British at every opportunity. Let's not forget that we, a bunch of petty princely states, are a mighty united Nation today, only thanks to the British. Also, our infrastructural facilities (railways) are also thanks to the British.

If you are averse to certain habits being carried on since long, then you are certainly entitled to campaign against that. But it must be done in a rational, sensible and objective manner for it to have any impact. Being emotional about it is no way to go forward.

[ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange of India]

Fine write up but doesn't ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange of India 305 ITR 227 (SC) conclude the issue? It was observed there:

40. The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court (in this case a decision of the High Court of Gujarat) or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record"? In our opinion, both - the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2).

and answered by saying:

41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 254 (2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal.

The SC has held that a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that of the SC, even if rendered subsequently, will constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

The full text is available here: http://www.caclubindia.com/judiciary/acit-vs-saurashtra-kutch-stock-exchange-821.asp

As for the facts mentioned in the problem, the agent will prepare his P & L account crediting the same with the commission received from principal. The principal prepares his P & L account by debiting the expenditure paid to the contractors ( infact paid by the agent without deducting the TDS). Therefore, the expenditure claimed by the principal will be disallowed because TDS is not deducted. It is immaterial whether the payment is made by the agent on behalf of the principal or the principal had directly made the payment. The amount debited in the P & L account of the principal will be disallowed since no TDS is deducted.

I agree with this analysis.

A Principal engages an agent for a region. The agent fails to deduct TDS u/s 194C, which he has incurred on behalf of his principal . Principal settles his account with agent without noticing the same, but deducts TDS from Agent's fee . Principal says that he could claim expenditure though agent failed to deduct TDS on same.As for Agent, he says that he is not concerned with disallowance as he is not claiming the expense in the Profit & Loss a/c. Whose expenditure is legitimately attracted for disallowance -Principal or agent ? or is this a loophole ? What recourse is available to the principal , if he is disallowed the claim ?Please share your views

Facts aere not clear:

(i) Was the agent required to pay sub-contractors on behalf of the principal?

(ii) Are such payments being claimed by the principal as a deduction?

(iii) What is the TDS deduction that the principal did when he paid the agent? Is it only on the agent's commission?

If the agent was required to pay sub-contrators on behalf of the principal then the failure by the agent to deduct tax at source will disable the principal's right to claim deduction of the payments.

[Soul vs. CIT]

Well you will have to file a stay petition before the CIT in which you will have to bring out:

(i) Prima facie case on merits

(ii) Financial hardship and

(iii) Balance of convenience.

If the assessed income is twice the returned income, then the Delhi High Court has held in Soul vs. CIT that stay has to be granted as per Instruction No. 96.

If the issue is covered on merits than as per the judgements of the Gujarat High Court in GSFC and Madhu Silica, stay has to be granted as per Circular No. 530.

If not you may have to agree to installments etc.

If the CIT is very arbitrary, then a writ is the only solution. However if the CIT is reasonable (say 10-25%) of the tax is demanded with installments facility, it is better to accept than to take chance in the Court.

Regards,

Probal.

Well researched. Succinct and informative.

I suppose the whole issue will become academic with a retrospective amendment in the Budget 2009.

I agree with the analysis. Very succinctly presented.

This is how the law develops. Keep up the good work.

Probal.