If the intention of the legislature was to align the exemption with section 26 of the SEZ Act or Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, then notification No. 4/2004-ST would have been amended to reflect the same. No such amendment has been carried out in the said notification. In these circumstances, we are of the view that if the services are not consumed within the Special Economic zone, then the benefit of notification No. 4/2004-ST will not be available.
As regards the penalty set aside by first appellate authority under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, for the quarter ending 30.09.2006, I find from the Form ST-3 return produced by ld. Counsel for the assessee, that the said form specifically indicate the taxable service rendered from April 2006 to September 2006 is Nil. Such return has been filed with the lower authorities on 25.09.2006.
Any order for imposing penalty specially the heavy once qas provided under Section 76 and 77, of the Act should show the reason justifying the imposition of penalty and thus following the principles of justice done. It is a fact on record that the Appellants had asked for clarification regarding availability of benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.6.03 from the department time and time again but as no response was made to their request under a bona fide belief of availability of said exemption notification had availed the benefit of said exemption notification.
It is undisputed that the appellant is a State Government entity and has been providing services of testing and certifying the quality of the seeds in the State. We find that the appellant was informed on 01.08.2006 by the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax that their activities would not fall under the category of services rendered and they would not be covered under the Service Tax.
It is known that section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 entitles minority shareholders, subject to the qualification prescribed, to approach the Company Law Board (CLB) under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking relief against the ‘oppression and mis-management’ from the majority shareholders in the Company. As majority shareholders effectively controls the Board through their say in General Body Meetings, the protection to the majority is not envisaged though even the majority can approach the Company Law Board under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 when they become artificial minority under certain circumstances.
The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner under section 84 as this section stood prior to 19-8-2009. It was passed on 24-3-2011. With effect from 19-8-2009, the date on which a new appellate remedy was granted in the place of the erstwhile revisionary remedy against orders passed by Central Excise officers subordinate to Commissioner of Central Excise, section 84 offers appellate remedy against an order passed by an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The provision for revision of such an order by the Commissioner ceased to be in force on 19-8-2009.
In the instant case, the assessee is a resident assessee. It is not borne out of record as to whether the ‘UK company’ is a resident assessee or non-resident assessee. Though the assessee claims that it is acting only as an agent of the ‘UK company’, yet the said claim has not been verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. Even, if the assessee is considered as an agent of the UK company, in view of section 5, the said UK Company is also liable to pay tax on its Indian income and if it claims that it is not liable to pay tax as per the DTAA entered by the Central Government with the Government of UK, then it is the
The owners have entered into an agreement for development of the property and certain rights were assigned to the developer who in turn had made the substantial payment and, consequently, entered into the property and, thereafter, if the transferee has taken steps in relation to construction of the flats, then it is to be considered as transfer under section 2(47)(v).
Whether the exemption u/s 54 will be available, in case, capital gain arising from sale of more than one residential house, is invested in one residential house. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee argued that there was no restriction under section 54 that capital gain arising from two residential houses cannot be invested in one residential house. We find substance in the argument advanced by the Id. counsel for the assessee.
The assessee is getting twin benefit from the employer, one of which is not taxed on the basis of reimbursement of rent by the assessee to the employer. The first benefit is of rent free accommodation provided by the employer to the assessee employee for which the employer is incurring rental expenditure of Rs. 1.70 lacs per month in addition to providing interest free deposit of Rs. 40 lacs with the land lord. The 2nd benefit being received by the assessee is this that he is getting HRA of Rs.3 lacs approximately per month including special HRA of Rs.1.70 lacs per month.
