Registration of sale / transfer deed is not relevant factor to the matter of capital gain and related aspect. 1. CIT v. Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd. - 239 ITR 775 (SC) 3. B.L. Sood - 245 ITR 727 (SC)

TDS ON SALARY TO NUNS AND PRIESTS OF CHURCH SURRENDERING SALARY TO CHURCH

1.     A  circular was issued by the Government in Circular No.1 of 1944 V.No.26(43)-IT/43, dated 24.01.1944 in which the liability to tax on the fees received by the missionaries and subsequently made over to the society had been considered. 

2. This Circular has been considered subsequently by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the year 1977 in their proceedings dated 5th December, 1977. In that instructions, the question for consideration was whether the fees or other earnings when the same is made over to the Congregation to which they belong under the rules thereof is liable to be taxed. The Central Board of Taxes, has concluded as follows:

The Board have examined this issue and have decided that since the fees received by the missionaries are to be made over to the congregation concerned there is an over-riding title to the fees which would entitle the missionaries to exemption from payment of tax. Hence such fees of earning are not taxable in their hands.

3.     When the Act came into force in 1971 as early as in 1963, the Government of India in a communication issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City in reference No.Dat/284 (287)/60, which is addressed to one of the Solicitors in Bombay, it has considered the claim made by the Rev. Fr. Valeria Godinho regarding exemption from payment of income tax for the Priests of the Archdiocese, Bombay. In that letter, it has been stated as follows:

   It has been decided in the case of Rev.Fr.Valeria Godinho that the Departmental appeals  filed be withdrawn. Incase where amount received by Priests as salary are subject to an overriding title by their conditions and rules of service, to be passed over to the Church authorities (whose income is exempt from tax) such amounts will not be liable to be taxed.

4.     Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, in his proceedings in R.C.No.230..11(75), dated 30.01.1969 addressed to the Secretary, Madras Catholic Educational Council on the representation of the council for exemption of the emoluments drown by the Priests or Nuns employed in the religious educational institutions has categorically stated as follows:

     It has been stated that in cases where the amount received by Priests and   

    Religious as salary are subject to an overriding title by their conditions, and

   rules and service to be passed over to the chruch authorities (whose income

   is exempted from tax) such amounts will not be liable to be taxed.

Madras High Court therefore Concluded that no TDS is required to be deducted on salary paid to Nuns and Priests subject to their providing affidavit that entire salary as a teacher/non teaching staff or in any other capacity has to be paid by the Government directly to the Congregation or Diocese, to which he belong. Also state that also state that all the payment made by the Government directly to the Congregation or Diocese is in full satisfaction of their salary as claimed by the schools and they will not have any further claim insofar as the payment of salary to them as it is directly made to the Congregation or Diocese. As according to them, it is the ultimate, final beneficiary which is receiving the salary

Madras High Court in Correspondent  v.Central Board of Direct Taxes 03-03-2016 [2016] 70 taxmann.com 85 (Madras)

in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (44) ELT 794 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that any unintended byproduct during the course of manufacturing of a particular goods could not be said to be an intended one

Due to financial constraints assessee selling its shares to others JV partner at a price even lower than the price at which rights were referred resulting in loss.Held not a colorable device. SIEL Ltd. (Del HC ) 24.07.14 57 TMC 29

The apex court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. [Para 9]

When statements of witnesses are made basis of demand, not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses is a serious flaw which makes order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice - It is not for adjudicating authority or Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes assessee wanted to cross-examine witnesses and what extraction assessee wanted from them- Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused is not sufficient to establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential. Its absence is fatal to the complaint.P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police (Supreme Court) September 14, 2015

Power to recall or review its order by adjudicating authority is not inherent power and must be specifically provided in the Act

Hanuman Rice Traders CWP 11398/2013  dated 22-05-2013
Followed Supreme Court in Kalabharti Advertisement 2010 9 SCC 437

Ignorance of law by Non Resident is valid excuse for penalty

Where foreign company having deputed assessee-non-resident in India, paid salary to him after deducting taxes payable, failure of assessee to show said income in his return was to be regarded as bona fide mistake for which penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) could not be levied
Emilio Ruiz Berdejo [2012] 26 taxmann.com 24 (Pune - Trib.)

Details disclosed in Income-tax returns are exempt from disclosure under RTI Act unless disclosure justified in larger public interest

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande [2012] 25 taxmann.com 525 (SC)

NSC shall double in 10 years w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 319(E), DATED 25-4-2012

Rate of interest on nsc subscribed on or after 01-04-2012 changed 

Rate of Interest on Senior Citizen Scheme shall be 9.3% w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 321(E), DATED 25-4-2012

Post Office MIS Interest w.e.f. 01-04-2012 shall be 8.5%

NOTIFICATION NO.GSR 322(E), DATED 25-4-2012

8.8% Interest on PPF w.e.f. 01-04-2012

NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 904(E), DATED 25-4-2012

Department can not take advantage of its own inaction

Orrisa High Court in case of Managing Committee CFH scheme 3-07-2012

a certificate ought to have been given to the petitioner during the financial year 2009-10 and the Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmentalinaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Dabur India Ltd. and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. AIR 1990 SC 1814, observed that Government, Central or State, cannot be permitted to play dirty games with the citizens of this country to coerce them in making payments which the citizens were not legally obliged to make. If any money is due to the Government, the Government should take appropriate steps, but it should not take extra legal steps or adopt the course of manoeuvring. Because of the above discontentment expressed at the Bar, it has become necessary to provide guidelines for just exercise of the power of Revenue authorities. To prevent the abuse of power and to see that it does not become a new despotism, courts are gradually evolving the principles to be observed by the authorities while exercising such power. New problems call for new solutions.

Presumption however strong can not replace evidence

i. M/s. Monga Metals Pvt. Ltd, vs. ACTI(2000) 67 TTJ 247 (Allahabad).
ii. M/s. Elite Developers Vs. DCIT(2000) 73 ITD 379 ( Nagpur Tribunal)
iii. DCIT Vs. D.N. Kamani ( HUF) (1999) 70 ITD 77 ( Patna Tribunal)
iv. JCIT Vs. Gramophone Company of India Ltd, (2004) 265 ITR (A.T) 46  ( Kolkata Tribunal)
v. CIT vs. Ram Narain 224 ITR 180 (P & H)

Foriegn law firms can not practice in India

Foreign Lawyers cannot practice law in India but are entitled to visit India for short periods to advice on foreign law & conduct international commercial arbitration

A Writ Petition was filed claiming that Foreign Law Firms and foreign lawyers were practising the profession of law in India in contravention of the Advocates Act and that they should be restricted from having any legal practice either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation and commercial transactions within the territory of India. HELD by the HighCourt:

RICE EXPORTS

Vide Notification No. 97 (RE-2010) dated 21-2-12 amending Chapter 10 of Schedule 2

Minimum Export Price of Basmati Rice has been reduced to US$ 700 per MT.  Earlier it was US$ 900 or Rs. 41,400/- per MT FOB. MEP is expressed only in terms of US dollar.

(ii)  Export is now permitted through all EDI ports.  Earlier it was allowed only through six ports.

In earlier news, HC had stayed ban on rice exports:

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday extended the stay on export of non-basmati rice after several firms appealed in the court to be made party to the suit, challenging the licences to 82 exporters by the government,alleging lack of transparency in quota allocation process. A Bench of Justice S K Kaul and Justice Rajiv Shakdhar while extending the stay on the export today, allowed the plea of other rice firms, including All India Grain Exporters Association, to raise their objections by making them party to the Kannu Aditya Ltd suit and listed the matter for further hearing on September 7.

The Bench also directed the Director General of Foreign Trade to scrutinise the applications of exporters to whom the Centre has allocated the quota for export of non-basmati rice.

On July 19, the ministry had notified the decision to allow non-basmati rice exports, lifting a ban imposed in April 2008 to control high food prices. The ministry allocated the quota on first-come-first serve basis and the letter of intent was invited through e-mail. However, only two days (July 21-22) were given to make applications for exports.

Following this, Kannu Aditya Ltd, a rice exporting firm, moved the court, alleging that there was no transparency in the process adopted by the government in granting the export licences.

Hearing the petition, the high court on July 26 directed the ministry of commerce not to proceed with its plan to grant licences for export of non-basmati rice.