Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962(52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby empowers all gazetted officers of Customs for the purposes of the said section.
Government has issued Notification No. 3/2008-ST, dated 19.02.2008, extending the scheme to refund service tax paid by exporters on taxable services, which are not in the nature of “input services” but could be linked to export of goods, to following three more taxable services: (i) Services provided by the Goods Transport Agency in relation to transportation of export goods from the place of removal to the actual place of export i.e. inland container depot / port / airport. (Section 65[105][zzp] ),
Imagic Creative (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from an indivisible contract. It may consist of different elements providing for attracting different nature of levy. It was, therefore, difficult to hold that in a case of instant nature, sales tax would be payable on the value of the entire contract, irrespective of the element of service provided. The approach of the assessing authority, thus, appeared to be correct.
ITO vs. Ellora Silk Mills (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the AO had accepted in the past that the warehousing charges received by the assessee was business income, he was not justified in reopening the assessment to assess the charges as property income in the absense of any change in the facts and circumstances.
Rupee Finance vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The contention of the assessee that the sales of shares by certain companies are not transfers as they are part of a family arrangement cannot be accepted as the company’s assets are different from the family assets. It is a distinct juristic entity and its assets cannot be mixed up with the assets of a shareholder. The corporate veil cannot be lifted and it cannot be assumed that the assets of the controlled companies are the assets of the family members; The mere fact that the transferor has received less than the market value of the asset does not mean that he can be assessed on the basis of the FMV In the absense of evidence to show that he has received more than the stated consideration.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
