The consumption of services in India has become costlier w.e.f. 1.7.2012. The services which were hitherto not taxable at all are into tax net now. Those which were taxed earlier have a larger scope or are taxed with lesser exemptions. The valuation norms have been made tougher so that Service Tax is levied on gross value of service which will include even non monetary consideration.
TDS Rates / Chart Under Income Tax Act, 1961 for Financial Year 2012-12/ Assessment Year 2013-14 on Salary (Section 192) , Interest on Specified & Other Securities (Section 193), Deemed Dividend & Other Dividend , Interest other than interest on security, Winning from Lotteries, Winning for horse race, Payment to Contractor & Sub-Contractor, Insurance Commission,
Bench held that When the transporter is same and recipient is respondent and there is no contradiction that tax was collected from the transporter, double taxation on the same transaction is inconceivable under the present provisions of Finance Act, 1994.
The Assessing Officer is not competent to make addition to the book profit for amount of interest, as the net profit had already been computed as per provisions of the Companies Act. The said amount does not fall under section 115JB(2) and Explanation 1 thereunder. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue on the said issue was liable to be dismissed.
Assessee contended that it is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 54EC of the Act even while computing book profit chargeable to tax under section 115JB of the Act. The Bench, while passing the order, followed the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court to hold that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 54EC of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
We find that certain fresh documents have been produced before CIT(A) and CIT(A) without calling for remand report or confronting such material to the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order in a very precise manner to delete the impugned addition which is not justified. So, action of the CIT(A) is not only violative of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, but also against the natural justice because sufficient and cogent reasons have not been given in this case.
Notification No. 34 /2012-Customs (ADD) Whereas, in the matter of import of Soda Ash (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under sub-heading 283620 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the customs Tariff Act), originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China, European Union, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries) and imported into India, the designated authority vide its final findings No. 14/17/2010-DGAD dated the 17thFebuary, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 17thFebuary, 2012, had come to the conclusion that-
Premier Mills Limited merely used the assessee firm as a special vehicle for the purpose of achieving, what it would not be possible for it to achieve in a legal way. It was found that as Premier Mills Limited could not purchase its own shares and in order to circumvent Section 77 of the Companies Act, it decided to repurchase the shares through the assessee herein, which subsequently sold the same to the sister concern, wherein the spouse of Managing Director of Premier Mills Limited was a Managing Director of the sister concern.
Having regard to the nature of the asset, if the AO is of the opinion, that valuation of the capital asset is required, but such reference can be made only to ascertain the fair market value, therefore, the applicability of section 55A(b)(ii) is also limited one. We have read section 50C alongwith these connected sections and then arrived at a conclusion that the AO is empowered to refer for valuation of a capital asset under specific circumstances as prescribed under this section provision of section 50C where he has found that the consideration received is less than the stamp duty.
Apparently the Superintendent took objection for the debit of interest in the cenvat credit and thereafter the appellants made the cash payment. Under these circumstances it has to be held that the payments made by the appellant were under protest only and therefore the time limit under Section 11B would not be applicable.
