195. [(1)Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head “Salaries” shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force :
In this case, the Service Tax demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service tax payable has not been debited in the CENVAT Credit account and it has not been reflected in the ST 3 return. In view of the fact that even in the cases of clandestine removal in Central Excise matters, while confirming the demand, the benefit of CENVAT Credit, subject to verification of records that proper documents are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed.
Tribunal had considered the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2005 ((190) ELT 301 before coming to the conclusion that when fabrication does not amount to manufacture, service tax is not leviable. Further, he also submits that the claim for exemption is on the ground that the contract was for construction of roads had been denied on the ground that contract was not produced.
3. As the respondents did not submit the required declaration in proper format, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/04-ST. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 13.10.06 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs. 6,917/-. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposing penalties. However, on appe
In Re Foster Wheeler France SA (AAR)- Just like our considering the date of hearing of the application under section 245R of the Act would make for uncertainty, the fixing of the date of notice under section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act by the income-tax authority as the starting point, would result in vagaries and to the use of different yardsticks to different applicants, it would depend on the diligence or non-diligence of the Assessing Officer, whether he had issued the notice before or after the application before this Authority has been filed and the nature of the notice.
No exhaustive and compact definition of the phrase ‘transfer pricing’ is possible nor has it been attempted in the legislations in the countries that have tried to find solutions to this menace. When transfers by way of sales exchange, etc. are made between two independent entities unconnected with each other as normal business deals, there can hardly be any scope of alleging any malpractice or hidden motives in price fixation.
Section 192 of the I.T. Act, 1961 provides that every person responsible for paying any income which is chargeable under the head ‘salary’, shall deduct income tax on the estimated income of the assessee under the head salaries. The tax is required to be calculated at the average rate of income tax as computed on the basis of the rates in force.
The CS Result December 2011 of Foundation, Executive & Professional Level would be announced on 25th Feb 2012 and would be published at all branches of ICSI. The CS Result December 2011 can also be viewed online on the following website.
Karnataka Government Insurance Department V. ACCE (Karnatka HC)- Activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law, which are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law are exempt from levy of service tax. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute and it is deposited into the Government treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. It is in those cases, service tax is not leviable. Insurance business is not a sovereign act. No fee is collected for performing such statutory functions.
JDIT Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- The stand taken by the appellant in its return of income has been upheld by the ld. High Court. Since, the quantum additions in both the assessment years under appeal has already been deleted by the ld. ITAT, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2003- 04 & 2004- 05. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the entire addition has been deleted the order of the CIT(A) holding that the penalty order does not survive cannot be faulted with.
