Recently in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE/CST CESTAT ruled that the refund or CENVAT credit on input services is allowed only if the services are consumed in the output service. It is held that the Board’s Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST, dated 19-1-10 does not have the effect of amending the statute and cannot be seen as authorizing sanction of refund if the credit of service tax does not relate to services consumed for providing the output service.
A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is – whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, on the facts and circumstances of this case, justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? In this civil
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The reply of the assessee in response to show cause notice against levy of concealment penalty have already been reproduced in para 5 of this order. The relevant portion of statutory provisions regulating levy of concealment penalty are reproduced below for the sake of convenience: –
The Income Tax department is planning a drive against tax evaders in the Kashmir Valley and to begin with will use “coercive” tools in the law to get people to file annual returns on their income.
For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Act , what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise any concept of deferred revenue expenditure.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case and the decisions cited before us. The issue before us as to whether or not the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA in terms of the provisions amended w.e.f 1.4.2000 even when the assessee had already started providing telecommunication services in the period relevant to the AY 1997-98. Before proceeding further, we may have a look at the provisions relevant to the AY 1997-98 and
Australia’s plan to impose a 40 per cent ‘super tax’ on the profits of mining companies has sent Indian miners scouting for acquisitions into a tizzy.The tax , proposed to be effective by July 2012, aims to raise an estimated Australian $9 billion for the government every year. This may severely dent the internal rate of return for projects already under consideration. This has prompted Indian firms to reassess their plans of entering the booming resources sector in Australia.
Further, section 67(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that the expression “gross amount charged” includes payment made by way of issue of credit! debit notes or by entries in the books of account, where the transaction is with any Associate Enterprise. Considering these provisions, it has now been clarified that in case of services received from Associate Enterprise, CENVAT credit of service tax can be availed in cases where the payment towards services provided is deemed to have been made to the service provider by way of book adjustments! issuance of debit or credit notes and the service tax has been paid to the credit of Government Account.
The ministry of corporate affairs, or MCA, is drawing up an amnesty scheme for companies that haven’t been able to file their annual returns and balance sheets in the 2008-09 fiscal and before that with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) and liable to penalties for missing the deadline.
Although the Income Tax Department is going all out to nab tax evaders in the high profile IPL-related cases, its past record shows that the agency managed to secure prosecution in barely 15 per cent of the cases. Going by this low prosecution rate, suspended IPL commissioner Lalit Modi and the franchisees he is said to have favoured, may not have much to worry about in the immediate future. That is assuming all the investigations against them result in chargesheets prosecutable in court.
