|
I. Today's Headlines:
1 FIIs stock up on Indian equities in December quarter. (Click here for details)
2 Important to respond to I-T notice promptly. (Click here for details)
3 The Modernisation of Direct Tax Systems. (Click here for details)
|
|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. JDS Apparels Ltd., Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5467/Del/2012, Date of Order : 07.02.2012, ITAT – Delhi.
Whether the credit card charges recovered by Bank from the assessee
as commission are subject to TDS provisions u/s 194H of the Act.
Held No.
The matter stands squarely covered by ‘Jet Airways (India)
Ltd.’(supra), wherein it has been held, under similar circumstances that
payments to banks for utilization of credit card facilities are in the
nature of bank charges and not commission and, therefore, no tax is
deductible at source u/s 194H.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
2. ADIT (E) vs. Nutrition Foundation of India, ITA no. 2745/Del/2011, Date of Order : 07.02.2012, ITAT – Delhi.
Whether reasonable expenses incurred by society on operations carried
from office cum residence premises of President of society shall amount
to obtaining of personal benefit and hence violation of provisions of
S.13(1)(c ).
Held No.
The assessee paid security charges of Rs.6,167/- rent of Rs.24,000/-
(i.e. Rs.2,000/- p.m.) for the year in respect of the premises B-37,
Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Certain expenses were also incurred on
telephone, water, electricity and also towards staff welfare. The issue
is whether such payments were for the personal benefit of Dr.C.Gopalan.
He is an internationally renowned Nutritional Scientist who held the
position of Director in the“National Institute of Nutrition“ and was
Director General of “Indian Council of Medical Research”. He is a Fellow
of the Royal Society and has been awarded “Padma Vibhushan”.
Dr.C.Gopalan is the guiding force behind the assessee society. Being 93
years of age, the society operated from his office-cum-residence at
B-37, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. On these facts and circumstances we are
of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Authority was right
in holding that the assessee has not violated provisions of S.13(1)(c )
of the Act. The expenses incurred are reasonable. This is not a case
whether the Founder Trustee has been remunerated. It is a case where
reasonable expenses were incurred for a furtherance of objectives.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
|
|
Golden Rule:
"They copied my product, they copied my strategies yet they failed
miserably in the business, because they couldn't copy my professionalism"
|
|
Thanks & Regards
Team
Voice of CA
|
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now