Even if it was accepted that the canteen service provided by the assessee was necessary for improving the efficiency of the worker and the same was eligible for Cenvat credit but in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2008] 17 STT 63 (Mum. – CESTAT) there is no dispute about the fact that as part of the cost of providing canteen service had been recovered from the workers and to that extent the assessee would not be eligible for the Cenvat credit.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.
There is no dispute about role of consignment agent attributing to the promotion of the sale. Once sale promotion falls within Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, admissibility of cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of such service availed is permissible.
The appellants were engaged in the business of renting out low-floor buses to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSTRC) on contract basis. RSTRC was using the buses as stage carriers for transportation of persons. The appellants did not pay service tax on the consideration received from RSTRC during the period 01-06-2007 to 31-12-2007.
The activity rendered by the assessee was of purchasing of prepaid SIM cards from mobile company and selling them to the ultimate customers or through dealers. For doing such an activity, the mobile company given an amount as a commission which according to the revenue was liable for service tax. The issue involved in the instant case was of service tax liability on the commission received which was the question in dispute before the Tribunal in various matters.
In this appeal of the department, the short question to be considered is whether the view taken by the lower authorities that the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit on stockbroker’s service which was used by the respondent for acquiring shares in another company with which the respondent had entered into an agreement for purchase of electricity for the purpose of manufacture of excisable product is correct or not.
Kindly note that the last date for filing the Form 23B without fee has been extended for two weeks. Fee shall be charged on any eForm 23B filed on or after 5th August, 2012. You are therefore advised to file the pending eForms within the time limit to avoid any last minute rush.
Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide its Notification No. 9/2012 dated 17th February, 2012 has exempted salaried employees from the requirement of filing the returns for assessment year 2012-13. The exemption is applicable only if all the following conditions are fulfilled:- • Employee has earned only salary income and income from savings bank account and the annual interest earned from savings bank account is less than Rs. 10 thousand. • The total Income of the employee does not exceed Rs. 5 Lakh (Total Income means Gross Total Income Less deductions under Chapter VIA).
In the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Srivatsan Surveyors (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 32 SOT 268 (Chennai) the issue was decided against the assessee on the basis that the depreciation on restrictive covenant is ‘a right in persona’ and not a ‘right in rem’ and, hence, depreciation on it is not allowable as per the provisions of section 32(1)(ii). In that case, Rs. 1 crore was paid to one of the directors on the basis of non-compete covenant entered into between the assessee-company and its director R. Srivatsan, as per which the said director agreed not to carry on his individual business of general insurance survey, loss assessment, valuation of assets, etc., for a period of seven years.
Q.1. If there is mismatch between the actual tax deducted and the amount shown in form 26AS, how to get it rectified and claim the balance? It is advised to claim the actual tax deducted in the return. Such mismatch will be handled in accordance with Instruction No. 4/2012, in the following manner: (a) Where difference between claim and amount reported in AS-26 does not exceed Rs. 5,000, the claim shall be accepted; (b) Where zero claim is matching, the credit shall be allowed only after due verification by department; (c) Where there is claim with invalid TAN, the TDS credit for such claim is not to be allowed; and d) In all other cases, the credit shall be allowed after due verification by the department.
