Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
A ‘Negative List’ approach for taxation of services is being introduced in the current fiscal. Under the new approach, all services except those in the ‘Negative List’ or otherwise exempted, would come into the tax net. The new system will come into effect from 1st July, 2012.
For those of readers who do not know the status of Budget proposals, let me update that the Finance Bill, 2012 proposals have become statutory provisions now and the bill has become Finance Act, 2012 with President of India signing the same on 28th May, 2012. Thus, most of the changed provisions in income tax and Excise / Service Tax have become applicable.
While applying DIN of an applicant, following Documents are required to be attached with the DIN 1 Form as Proof of Identity and as Proof of Residence (As per DIN Help Form): Proof of Identity of applicant – In case of Indian nationals, Income-tax PAN is a mandatory requirement for proof of identity. In case of foreign nationals, passport is a mandatory requirement for proof of identity.
The Central Government by exercising the power conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) has made the Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2012 (herein after referred as the Compounding of offences Rules, 2012) published by Notification No.17/2012-ST, dated 29.05.2012.
As regards the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the question again is whether in computing the income of the trust on commercial principles, the provision can be deducted or where the deduction can be allowed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(i)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable purposes in India should be computed not in accordance with the strict provisions of the Income Tax Act but should be computed in accordance with commercial principles and it is on this footing that the payment of Income Tax Act under the VDIS was treated as a deduction and as proper amplication of the income of the trust. The same line of reasoning holds good for the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Even under the computation provision of the Act such a provision was considered allowable up to and including the assessment year 1988-89 and it was only from the assessment year 1989-90 that the Act required that a mere provision would not be allowable as a deduction and the actual writing off of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Be that as it may, under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted from the income if there is apprehension that the debt might become bad. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bona fide. In such a situation the ratio of the decisions cited by us while dealing with the deductibility of the taxes paid under the VDIS will equally apply. We accordingly hold that while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) the provision for doubtful debts must be deducted.
It was alleged that the Investigation Wing of income Tax Department at Kanpur conducted survey on the allegation of IT evasion by the said private group of companies. The senior level officials of the private company along with a Chartered Accountant based in Kanpur contacted several officials of IT Department to settle their IT evasion matter by illegal means and allegedly paid huge amount of bribe to the said officials of Income Tax. The IT officials, during the locker operation of the private company, also allowed the MD & his family to illegally take away major portion of huge cash and gold stored in the said locker.
All concerned may please note that due to administrative reasons beyond our control, the examination of ‘Elements of Business Laws and Management’ Paper of CS Foundation Programme scheduled to be held on 5th June, 2012 has been postponed. Fresh date for conducting the examinations of the above mentioned paper will be intimated separately. For any clarification/information in this regard, please contact the Student Services Section of the Institute at Tel.No. 0120-4522081/ 86 or at E-Mail id enroll@icsi.edu
Service Tax – Construction of complex service -The Appellants argue that there is no relationship of service provider and service recipient between the Developer and the Land Owner. According to them it is a relationship in a joint venture for profit. Both the parties have joined together in the business of construction of complex and the land owner brings in the capital by way of his land. The Developer by way of his capital and services and they jointly construct the complex and use or sell the flats for profit. He argues that CBEC had clarified the position that no service arises in such context. This clarification dated 29-01-09 is examined later in this order.
Explanation-3 to section 43(1) says that where the AO is satisfied that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets to the assessee was the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming depreciation with a reference to an enhanced cost, then the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The facts of the case are that the assessee had leased its property at Vidyavihar to Minicon Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. (MIWPL) at Rs. 22,56,000, which in turn was leased out by MIWPL to various other parties, from which it was receiving rents of Rs. 1,59,34,618. The AO, relying on the orders of the preceding years, added the rents received by MIWPL at Rs. 1,59,34,618 in the hands of the assessee, holding that the rent agreement between the assessee and MIWPL was a sham, and the entire rent received by the company actually belonged to the assessee, as assessee and MIWPL are related parties.
