The Union Budget 2012-13 and the Finance Bill, 2012 has been passed by the Lok Sabha and is likely to be passed by Rajya Sabha this week and then become a statute on President’s assent. Withdrawal of Income Tax (TDS) on purchase of immovable property up to Rs 5 lakhs GAAR provisions postponed to 1.4.2014 Securities transaction tax (SST) on sale of unlisted securities reduced to 0.2 percent No excise duty on purchase of jewellery upto Rs 5 lakh No service tax on deemed sale of goods
The Finance Minister has introduced the Finance Bill, 2012 proposing, inter alia, taxation of services based on a negative list. This announcement involves a paradigm shift by moving away from taxation of specified description of services to a new system of taxation of all services except those specified in the negative list or otherwise exempted. An important key for its implementation is to identify the taxing jurisdiction for a service.
As far as difference in foreign exchange is concerned, it is to be computed based on straight formula. Similarly, depreciation could also be verified from details available on the record. Considering all these aspects, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Sec. 24 has been amended w.e.f. 01-04-2002. Before the amendment, various categories of expenditure like collection charges, insurance premium, ground rent, land revenue, etc., were allowable, but after the amendment, only two types of deductions are possible, namely, 30% of the total annual value and amount of interest paid for acquisition of property. No other deduction is possible and accordingly we hold that the amount of expenditure incurred on account of brokerage, professional consultancy, maintenance, etc., relating to the property is not allowable under the head ‘income from house property’.
Under the present system there are 88 exemption notifications. The need for exemptions is not obliterated with the introduction of negative list. While some existing exemptions have been built into the negative list, others, wherever necessary, have been retained as exemptions. In addition new exemptions are proposed to be introduced in the context of the negative list. For ease of reference and simplicity most of the exemptions are part of one single mega exemption notification (list of such proposed exemptions can be placed as Exhibit A2). In addition there are 9 more exemption notifications (list of such proposed exemptions is placed as Exhibit A3). The total number of exemption notifications, therefore, proposed to be issued in the new system would be only 10.
The Court upheld Section 48(5) of the MVAT Act, ruling that input tax credit cannot exceed tax actually deposited in the Government Treasury. It held that the provision is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14.
The Commissioner (Appeals), without application under rule 46A and without recording any reason for admitting the documents and explanation filed before him and without affording reasonable opportunity to examine such evidence or documents filed before him by the Assessing Officer had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, which is clear violation of principle of natural justice.
The word ‘compromise’ itself signifies an agreement between the two parties to compound the offence. If the parties do not agree to compound the offence, the Court has to proceed with the complaint. It is different thing that the Court on considering the offer of payment of cheque amount plus cost may not award a punishment of imprisonment and may only award penalty plus compensation.
On appeal, the assessee filed the details, which are required by the AO, before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) rejected the same. We find that under the similar circumstances in AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and details filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the AO with a direction to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the matter.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court modified the order of the ITAT and, instead of order under Section 263 having been quashed by the ITAT, set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order.
