Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit inter alia of service tax which is paid on (i) any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of the final product; and (ii) Any input service received by the manufacturer of the final product. The subordinate legislation in the present case makes a distinction between inputs or capital goods on the one hand and input services on the other other.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Central ExciseRules, 2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number 14/2002-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 8th March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section(i), vide number G.S.R. 182(E), dated the 8th Mrch, 2002, namely.
In this case, the factory is located in a village and the village does not have adequate facilities for employees and therefore to get the proper employees, it becomes necessary for the assessee to provide transportation facility from the nearest city. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is providing transportation facility to its employees as a welfare measure, but it is necessity to ensure that the manufacture takes place properly. Therefore, in the case before me, it can be said that the service has a relation to the business of manufacture and has a nexus.
So far as question (i) is concerned, the respondent assessee has claimed deduction of interest on tax free bonds of Rs.5,60,11,644/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of interest on tax free bonds. While preparing the said details, it was noticed that 6% Government of India Capital Index Bonds purchased during the year had inadvertently been categorized as tax free bonds and, therefore, interest of Rs.75,00,000/- earned on such bonds had also inadvertently escaped tax.
In its reply dated 19th June 2012 to the notice dated 26th May 2012 the Respondent has denied any liability whatsoever. It is, inter alia, stated in the reply sent by the Respondent through its counsel that “In the facts and circumstances, please advise your client that my client is not liable to pay any sum of US$ 350,000 or any other amount under the Agreement dated 18.05.2008 as alleged.
Delhi HC upholds deduction claim under Section 80HHC, dismissing penalty. Ruling based on Supreme Court decisions. Full analysis of ITA 47/2013 judgment.
In this view of the matter, we opine that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in reversing the view taken by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal is proper, does not suffer from any error of law and therefore we answer the questions posed in the affirmative to hold that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction even before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years.
We have uploaded below a Budget booklet cum Direct Tax Ready Reckoner prepared by Lucknow CA Club which Budget Changes along with handy day to day use information. The book contains the following updates :- Finance Ministers of India from 1947 to 2013 Highlights-Service Tax Highlights- Income Tax /Wealth Tax Section wise Major Changes Other […]
Director General of Foreign Trade vide notification no. 30 (RE-2012)/2009-2014 dated 31.01.2013 amended FTP 2009-2014 and introduced a new para 4A.16A for setting up of Public/Private Bonded Warehouses for Gems & Jewellery Sector.
Reference is made to Para 4 of Circular No.20/2012 – Customs dated 27.7.2012 wherein it was indicated that there are certain areas of change in the FTP supplement 2012-13 for which notifications shall be issued subsequently as modalities to make them operational
