Whether a manufacturer is required to reverse/pay the amount equivalent to the CENVET credit taken by him in respect of inputs which are proved to have been used in the manufacture of goods which have been cleared under exemption from excise duty, in view of the specific provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (now 2004) read with Explanation II to Rule 6 (3) of the said rules which provide that no credit can be taken in respect of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods?
In our considered view the contention of learned counsel for the assessee has substance inasmuch as Indian law does not prescribe registration of the Will, it should be in writing, attested by two witness; there is no requirement of any registration or notarization thereof. In this case the Will is in writing and duly attested by two witnesses, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on the aspect that witness did not advice for registration of the same.
Upto 30.06.2012, the charging Section for the purpose of Service tax is Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 according to which service tax is levied at the rate of 12% on all taxable services. With effect from 01.07.0212, Section 66 will no longer be in force and a new charging section 66B will take its place. Section 68 stipulates that service tax is payable by the service providers at the rate specified under Section 66 in such manner as may be prescribed. This Section is continued in the Finance Act, 1994 even from 01.07.2012. Government has now realised its mistake and come with a order specifying the charging section for service tax w.e.f 01.07.2012 to 66B.
TDS on Salary Calculator for Central & State Govt employees for Financial Year 2012-13 / Assessment year 2013-14. Calculator Automatically Calculates your tax liability. It Generates From 16 and Form 10E with Annexure. Calculator also Calculate House Rent Exemption and have inbuilt HRA Calculator.
Assessee is engaged in the business of production and export of software from India to foreign countries and they are not in the business of providing technical services outside India, it is only producing and exporting software. The material on record clearly shows that except for these three years, rest of the certificates are correctly issued showing the amount involved in the production and export of the software at Clause 3(i). It is only in these three years certificates as against the Clause 3(i) nothing is typed and it is typed against Clause 3(ii). Hence, we are satisfied that there is a bona fide typographical error. The Chartered Accountant without carefully looking into those entries has issued the certificates, which has resulted in confusion.
The main issue raised by the DIT(E) is in respect of holding of conference of doctors at a five star hotel and the fact that the donors are pharmaceutical companies and some of them have deducted TDS. Adverse inference has also been drawn from extravagance of expenses the fact that the conference was of doctors and there is no benefit to the common public.
The Council of the Institute recently considered the issue regarding status of intervening holidays during CA Examinations and decided that the break in between examination days, though not holidays, be treated as period actually served under articles.
The instant case is that of the partner and therefore what is to be examined is whether the share income is excluded from his total income. The answer is obviously in the affirmative. In such a situation, provision contained in section 14A will come into operation and any expenditure incurred in earning the share income will have to be disallowed. section 14A uses the words expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income. A statutory allowance under section 32 i.e. Depreciation is not an expenditure.
A was the managing director and in terms of the board resolution was entitled to receive commission for services rendered to the company. It was a term of employment on the basis of which he had rendered service. Accordingly, he was entitled to the amount. Commission was treated as a part and parcel of salary and tax had been deducted at source. A was liable to pay tax on both the salary component and the commission. The payment of dividend was made in terms of the Companies Act, 1956. The dividend had to be paid to all shareholders equally. This position could not be disputed by the Revenue. Dividend was a return on investment and not salary or part thereof.
In the instant case before us also, the assessee parted with a portion of his commission received from the builder for helping the intending buyers of flats. In other words, the purchasers received discount in the purchase price .There is nothing to suggest that the purchasers of flats rendered any service to the assessee rather the assessee rendered services to the intending purchasers. In the light of view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their aforesaid decision in Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd(supra),especially when the Revenue have not placed before us any material ,controverting the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A),holding that the provisions of section 1 94H are not attracted while making payments to the aforesaid intending purchasers of flats. Consequently, provisions of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable.
