|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 M/s Albroz Industries, Baddi, Distt. Solan Vs The ITO, Parwanoo, H.P. | | BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER | | Shri, A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member and Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member | | M/s Overseas Carpets Limited,I-1/16, Shanti Mohan House, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,New Delhi 110002 vs. ACIT, Circle 13(1),New Delhi Room No. 406, CR Bldg., New Delhi | | ACIT, Circle II, Moradabad.Vs. Sunil Saran Kothiwal,38, Civil Lines,Moradabad (PAN/GIR No.N.A.) | | Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) | | Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi Room No. 357, ARA Centre, E-2 vs. M/s Moets Bar-B-Cue,50, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi 110 024 PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM7936M | | ADIT, Cir. 1(1), (Intl. Taxation), 204, Drum Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002 vs. Ms. Meena Chopra, P-13, Ground Floor,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi | | CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER |
|
|
|
|
|
| « The myth of Freedom of Press... | Contractor takes IR35 fight to High Court... » |
Crucial IR35 appeal hits the High Court for the second time |
|
|
| June, 06th 2008 |
An appeal will be launched in the High Court today which could have huge implications for future claims under IR35 tax law.
IT contractor John Bessell will begin his second battle to overturn a previous ruling to pay 99,000 in employment taxes under IR35, funded by the Professional Contractors Group.
The director of Dragonfly Consulting claims that as a freelance system tester for the AA for three years, he should not be considered an employee.
Special Commissioner Charles Hellier had previously ruled that there was 'nothing which points strongly toMr Bessell [being]in business on his own account.'
The PGC claims that a rejection of his appeal could 'undermine much of the successful defence against IR35,' and that under case law 'one would expect Mr Bessell to be found outside of IR35'.
|
|
|
