TDS- New RPU & FUV Version 1.5 for Form 24G Statements from FY 2005-06 onwards
Form 24G Return Preparation Utility (RPU) and File Validation Utility (FVU) Version 1.5 for the Form 24G Statements from FY 2005-06 onwards released
New Form 24G Return Preparation Utility (RPU) and File Validation Utility (FVU) Version 1.5 can be downloaded from the following link :-
https://www.tin-nsdl.com/form-24g/form24g-download.php
Steps to download and install Form 24G Preparation Utility
1. Form 24G Preparation Utility can be downloaded from TIN website at the following locations:
a. Services→Form 24G →NSDL Form24G preparation Utility (version 1.2)
b. Downloads → Form 24G → NSDL Form 24G preparation (version 1.2)
2. On download, file with name "Form 24GRPU.exe" will be saved at the desired location.
3. For installing the Form 24G Preparation Utility, double click on the file downloaded (Form 24GRPU.exe) from the TIN website.
4. On double clicking, a window will be displayed for extracting the contents of the exe file. Default location for extracting the files will be C drive (see Figure 1.1 below).
5. Files can also be extracted in any other location (other than C drive). In that case, define the appropriate path by clicking the 'Browse' button where the files are to be extracted.
Figure 1.1
6. Click on "Unzip" to extract the Form 24G Preparation Utility.
7. On clicking the "Unzip" button a folder 'Form 24GRPU' will be created as below in Figure 1.2. 
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.28. A folder named 'Form 24GRPU' will be created contains four files, which will be extracted at the default path (C:\Form 24GRPU) or the desired location, as mentioned below in Figure 1.3:
a. Form 24GRPU.jar
b. Form 24GRPU.bat
c. Folder name 'Icon'
Figure 1.3
9. To open the Form 24G Preparation Utility, double click on the file "Form 24GRPU.bat" available in the folder where RPU has been installed and the RPU will open as in Figure 1.4 below. 
Figure 1.4
Benckiser's advertisement comparing 'Dettol' with 'Betadine' disparaging, applies 'reasonable man' test |
COMPAT directs Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd.'s (respondent) to cease and desist from publishing 'disparaging' advertisement in Journal of Indian Medical Association (JIMA), comparing its product 'Dettol' with complainant's Betadine Antiseptic Solution ('Betadine') and displaying chart showing relative efficacy of products, as it amounts to unfair trade practice u/s 36-A(1)(x) of MRTP Act; Perusing respondent's advertisements, observes that, "Any person of ordinary prudence who reads the advertisement will be impressed by the 'tick marks' given against Dettol.. At the same time, he will have an impression that Betadine Antiseptic Solution is worthless and is totally ineffective..", thus concludes that whole object of respondent was to berate/denigrate respondent's product; Rejects respondent's contention that advertisement issued by it was not meant for public at large, observes that one lakh copies of JIMA were distributed among medical professionals, govt Institutions, holiday resorts etc which indicates that, "the Journal in which the advertisements were published has a wide reach and is accessible by the consumers"; Further rejects respondent's contention that advertisement was a mere puffery, explains that, "between clear-cut cases of permissible comparative advertising and impermissible 'rubbishing' of a rival's product there may yet be a wide field of cases and the dividing line in such cases would have to draw based on the test whether a reasonable man would take the claim of the alleged slanderer seriously or.. dismiss it as mere puffery.."; Relies on SC ruling in Lakhanpal National Limited vs. M.R.T.P. Commission, Delhi HC ruling in HUL vs. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd, foreign rulings in White v. Mellin, De Beers Abrasive Products Ltd. and Others v. International General Electric Co. of New York Ltd, and also directs respondent to pay compensation:COMPAT |
| The ruling was delivered by Justice G.S. Singhvi, Chairman, COMPAT. Advocates Saif Khan, Puneet Ahuja and Pachi Aggarwal appeared on behalf of Complainant while respondent was represented by Advocates Rajshekhar Rao and Kamaljeet Singh. |
LSI Note:Section 36-A(1)(x) of MRTP Act defines Unfair Trade Practice as the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person. |
Anil Kumar Chaudhary vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)by editor |
Law does not provide or mandate that the Assessing Officer shall suo motu shall supply the copy of those 'reasons to believe' to the assessee. It is for assessee and if assessee chooses to ask for reasons then he/she can file objection thereto. Only when such objections are filed, it becomes the duty of the Assessing Officer to dispose of all those objections first by passing a speaking order and if the objections are rejected then it gives a cause to the assessee to challenge such order by filing an appropriate writ
PFA
| S. 147/ 148: If the assessee does not ask for reasons and file objections before the AO, he is not entitled to challenge the reopening proceedings |
(i) Law does not provide or mandate that the Assessing Officer shall suo motu shall supply the copy of those 'reasons to believe' to the assessee. It is for assessee and if assessee chooses to ask for reasons then he/she can file objection thereto. Only when such objections are filed, it becomes the duty of the Assessing Officer to dispose of all those objections first by passing a speaking order and if the objections are rejected then it gives a cause to the assessee to challenge such order by filing an appropriate writ. This is the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO – 259 ITR 19. cited supra. In the instant case, the assessee did not ask for reasons to believe. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment order was passed. The assessee felt aggrieved to such order and filed the appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) has passed an appropriate order on this issue. Thus, we hold that the assessment was reopened by issuing a legal and valid notice u/s 148 of the Act. On the procedural aspect also, there is no infirmity in the notice. The notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) were also properly served on the representative of the assessee.
(ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of A.G. Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 352 ITR 364 has held that there is no requirement in section 147 of the Act or section 148 or section 149 that the reasons recorded for reopening an assessment should also accompany the notice of reassessment issued u/s 148. The requirement in section 149(1) is only that the notice u/s 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation. There is also no requirement in section 148(2) that the reasons recorded shall be served along with the notice of reopening the assessment. The requirement, which is mandatory, is only that before issuing the notice to reopen the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall record his reasons for doing so. Thus, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to supply the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee, after the assessee files the return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 and on his making a request to the Assessing Officer to that effect. In the case under consideration, even the assessee has not made any request for supply of the reasons. (CIT vs. Safetag International India (P.) Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 622 (Del) followed)
(Delhi)
(Delhi)
Related Judgements
- Sanjay Kumar Garg vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) There is a difference between "issue" and "service". To obtain jurisdiction to assess/reassess the escaped income, the s. 148 notice has to be "issued" but need not be "served". Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction on the AO but a condition precedent only to the…
- A. G. Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) There is no requirement in s. 147, 148 or 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued u/s 148. The requirement in s. 149(1) is only that the notice u/s 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the…
- Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs. DCIT (ITAT Lucknow) In the instant case, undisputedly the return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Act, it was rather a belated return as it was filed on 19.1.1995 and due date for filing of return was 31.10.1993. The return of the assessee was, however, processed under section 143(1) of…
DCIT vs. Rajasthan Global Securities Ltd (ITAT Delhi)by editor |
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee took delivery of such shares after making full payment and it was not a case of settling the transaction of purchase and sale of such shares during the settlement period itself. This is another reason to indicate that the intention of the assessee to hold them as Investment
PFA
| Factors to be considered for classifying gains from sale of listed shares into "short-term capital gains" versus "business profits" explained |
The decision to hold shares as `Investment' or `Stock-in-trade' depends on a host of factors. There can be no single criteria to decide the nature of shares purchased. In fact, it is the cumulative effect of all the relevant factors, which is taken into consideration for reaching a conclusion as regards the nature of shares and the resultant income arising from their transfer. There may be some factors indicating the purchase of shares as investment, while others may point towards stock-in-trade. It is the holistic consideration of all such factors which is kept in view while deciding as to whether the shares purchased by the assessee constituted stock-in-trade or investment. On facts, the factors in favour of holding the purchase of shares as investment are:
(i) The argument of the DR that the assessee entered into such shares at a time when they were at the lowest price and hence there could be no possibility of making Investment, cannot be considered as decisive for holding such shares as stock-in-trade. A person may think of making investment in the shares of a company at a price which is quite low and, then, maintain position in it for a period by allowing it to prosper. There is no rule of purchasing shares as investment only when the price of shares of a company is at the peak.
(ii) The assessee firstly purchased all the shares of Satyam Computers over a period of time and, thereafter, started their disposal. There is no frequent in and out of these shares.
(iii) It is manifest that the assessee had the initial intention to hold these shares as `Investment' which is discernible from the fact that these were entered into the `Investment register' maintained u/s 372A(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of their purchase. This is another reason to show the assessee's intention of holding shares in Satyam Computers as investment ab initio.
(iv) Another factor which is of paramount importance is the assessee's contention that these shares were purchased out of the assessee's own funds without making any borrowing.
(v) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee took delivery of such shares after making full payment and it was not a case of settling the transaction of purchase and sale of such shares during the settlement period itself. This is another reason to indicate that the intention of the assessee to hold them as Investment.
(vi) Another factor which needs to be mentioned is that the assessee was consistently holding some other shares as investment over a period of time and was regularly earning income from their sale by declaring profit as 'Short-term capital gain' or 'Long-term capital gain' depending upon the period of their holding. There is no doubt that shares of Satyam Computers were not purchased or treated as Investment in any of the earlier years, but at least this factor shows that the assessee was also engaged in the purchase of shares as Investment and showing profit from their sale under the head `Capital gains'.
(vii) The assessee has placed on record a copy of the assessment orders for immediately preceding assessment year in which there was 'Short-term capital gain' of Rs.17.21 crore which has been accepted by the AO. Similarly, there is an order passed u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2006-07 accepting that the assessee was engaged in the business as well as in investment of shares. It is manifest that there is no alteration in the character of income shown by the assessee. The principle of consistency in terms of the assessee holding shares as stock-in-trade as well as investment, cannot be lost sight of.
Related Judgements
- DCIT vs. Baljit Securities Private Limited (ITAT Kolkata) (i) Both trading of shares and derivative transactions are not coming under the purview of Section 43(5) of the Act which provides definition of "speculative transaction" exclusively for purposes of section 28 to 41 of the Act. Again, the fact that both delivery based transaction in shares and derivative…
- DCIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Though in American Express Bank, the Tribunal followed Daga Capital Management 117 ITD 169 & distinguished Leena Ramachandran 339 ITR 296 (Ker) & held that s. 14A applies also to a trader in shares, the Karnataka High Court has held in CCL Ltd 250 CTR 291 that disallowance of…
- Nehal V. Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The AO had not correctly calculated the number of transactions because sometimes a single transaction is split by the computers trading of the stock exchanges into many smaller transactions but that does not mean that assessee has carried so many transactions. If someone places an order for purchase of…
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment