-
IT/ILT Notification No. 4/2012 : Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Foreign Countries – Georgia (Click for detail)
-
Know Your Income Tax Refund Status online (Click for detail)
-
MCA asks for Comments / Suggestions for future XBRL Implementation (Click for detail)
-
Order- D Vat-51 Extension & Arrangement (Click for detail)
-
Taxman freezes Air India’s Bank A/Cs (Click for detail)
II. Recent Updates:
1. ITO, (TDS) Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, ITA No. 1829 to 1834/Del/2011 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2011, (ITAT - Delhi)
The assessee entered into contracts with transporters for transporting petroleum products from the plant to various destinations. The assessee deducted TDS u/s 194C at 2% on the basis that the transportation contract was “work”. The AO held that the contract was a “hiring” of vehicles on the basis that
(i) the assessee had exclusive possession and usage,
(ii) the use was for a fixed tenure,
(iii) the tankers were customized to the assessee requirements and that TDS ought to have been u/s 194-I at 10%.
It held that the agreement was of the nature of transport agreement and not one for hiring of vehicles because the tank truck owners did not simply confine themselves to providing vehicles at the disposal of the assessee in lieu of rent but also engaged their drivers in driving such vehicles and thereby in transporting petroleum products from one place to the other. In effect, the truck remained in the possession of the staff of the carrier. Further, the assessee was required to pay for the transportation work on the basis of distance and no idle charges were payable. There was no transfer of the right to use the vehicle involved in the agreement. The agreement was merely for carriage of petroleum products and so s. 194-I was not applicable.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Shri Ram S Sarda Vs. DCIT, I.T.A No. 1172/RJT/2010 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2011, (ITAT- Rajkot)
Pursuant to a search u/s 132, cash was seized from the assessee and third parties and assessed as the assessee income. Though the assessee requested that the said seized cash be treated as payment of “advance tax”, the AO ignored the same and levied interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C on the basis that advance tax had not been paid.
In ITAT, held that the cash seized during the course of search is required to be adjusted against taxes due including advance-tax for the purpose of computation of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 234C from the date when it was seized and cash seized from third party or cash seized from the assessee would retain the same character.
(Please click here for judgment)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now