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!
In partial modification of point no. 3.7.1 of Advertisement Guidelines Circular No. 007/IRDA/Cir/Adv/May-07 dated 14th May, 2007 relating to Joint Sale Advertisements, it is decided to permit Insurers to release Joint Sales Advertisements, without prior approval of the Authority, in accordance to the applicable regulations / guidelines in vogue and file the same. However, all the Joint Sale Advertisements filed with the Authority shall continue to carry a certificate from the Appointed Actuary as specified therein. It is also reiterated that a Joint Sale Advertisement is permitted to be issued only with its Corporate Agent or with a Micro Insurance Agent.
Notification No. 60/2012-Customs (N.T.), S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad, Maharashtra, to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on-
Notification No. 59/2012-Customs (N.T.) New Delhi, dated the 17th July, 2012. S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner […]
Under section 254(2), the appellate Tribunal may, ‘with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record’, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) within the time prescribed therein. It is an accepted position that the appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act.
By Finance Act of 2001, the Parliament enacted section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect from 1.04.1962. Prior to insertion of sec. 14A, the Revenue had sought to disallow expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, 242 ITR 450, held that where there was one indivisible business giving rise to taxable income as well as exempt income, the entire expenditure incurred in relation to that business would have to e allowed even if a part of income earned from the business was exempt.
Delhi High Court held that whether the prior period expenses were shown separately or not, the assessee would nevertheless be entitled to have the adjustment of the prior period expenses in the matter of computing the net profit of the assessee. Thus on mere fact that the assessee had shown its prior period expenses in the extraordinary items separately, did not mean the net profit was arrived at de hors these items. The Delhi High Court further pointed out that the assessee had not claimed any deduction with the net profit on the basis of any clauses given in the Explanation to section 115JA(2). Consequently the question was answered in favour of the assessee. The view expressed by the Delhi High Court is agreed with and is applied to the instant case.
The Tribunal ignored that the role of the assessee with regard to the goods supplied by supplier was only that of a bailee and so the value of goods cannot constitute income in its hands. The entire contention of the revenue rested on the wrong premise that the payment had been made by the owner NSTL, a fact which was totally against the agreed terms of the contract between the assessee and NSTL.
In the instant case, the expenditure in respect of CMC charges was incurred by the assessee in discharging its primary responsibility as a CHA. In view of the clear provisions of rule 5 of the Service-tax (Determination of value) Rules, 2006, the CMC charges are to be included in the assessable value of the taxable service provided by the assessee. As regards the issue of time bar, it was found that the assessee never disclosed the fact that CMC charges are recovered from its customers in the ST-3 returns in which the statutory returns were filed by the assessee, wherein there was a separate column in which the assessees had to show the reimbursable expenses. Therefore, there was no merit in contention of assessee in respect of time bar also.
The assessee was registered with the Central Excise Department on its own on 16-6-2005. It was a proprietorship concern and it was required to file the service tax returns quarterly, which it had been filing meticulously with the Department. However, due to non-understanding of the relevant provisions of law, there was some short-payment of service tax during the period from August 2005 to October, 2006. However, when the said short payment was brought to the assessee’s notice in November, 2006 by the Visiting Departmental Officers, the entire amount of service tax was paid.
As per section 37C(l)(a), it was mandatory on the part of the Revenue to serve a copy of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by registered post with acknowledgment due to the assessee. Admittedly in the present case, a copy of the order has not been sent by registered post. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the requirement of Section 37C has been complied with.
