Renting has been defined w.e.f. 1.7.2012 in section 65B(41) as allowing, permitting or granting access, entry, occupation, usage or any such facility, wholly or partly, in an immovable property, with or without the transfer of possession or control of the said immovable property and includes letting, leasing, licensing or other similar arrangements in respect of immovable property’.
Considering the fact that the dispute between the partners in respect of the accounts of the said firm was referred to the arbitrator who was an independent person and the said arbitrator looking to the entire evidence has accepted the balance-sheet audited by the 1st Respondent as correct, we see no reason to interfere with the prima facie view of the Institute on the complaint filed by the Petitioner.
Scheme of the Act provides that after the employer deducts from the salary of the employee the tax and pays the same to the Central Government, a Tax Deduction Certificate is furnished to the employee and it is for the employee to claim before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and get a determination done and in case he succeeds before the Assessing Officer, he will be entitled to refund out of the amount of tax deducted at source by the employer.
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed as reported at 2012 (25) J514 (SC). So we consider that this matter is no longer res integra and service tax can be demanded under section 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The following two questions have been referred to the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee with reference to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
As per Section 65(105)(zzzn) the activity undertaken by the applicant is a sponsorship activity but same is specifically exempt if same is undertaken in relation to sponsorship of the sports events. The above said activity came into taxable event with effect from 1.7.2010 when an exemption for sponsorship of sports event has been withdrawn.
Activities of the appellant may not deserve to be considered as ‘supply of manpower’ but as rendering of ‘information technology software service’ and in the light of the stay granted in the case of ASM Technologies Ltd. (supra), the appellants are eligible for waiver of pre-deposit. As regards, the denial of CENVAT credit,
Admittedly, the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of I.T.O V/s M/s CMA CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on identical facts relied on by the ld. counsel of the assessee, quashed the order passed u/s 172(4) of the Act with the observation that the jurisdictional AO may verify the position and take such action as may be warranted in law in terms of section 172(7) to ensure that the income of the assessee from the various voyages does not escape assessment as per the normal provisions of the I-T Act.
In the instant case, the assessee denied incurring any expenditure for earning income, which did not form part of total income during the course of assessment proceedings even when huge investments were made by the assessee in the shares for having controlling interest . In terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income,
After examining the records, I am of the view that the services in relation to Convention services, Memberships of Clubs & Association Services, Health Club & Fitness Centre Services and House Keeping services are not entitled for input service credit.
