Assessing Officer was carried away by the original return filed by the assessee, wherein originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment.
The assessing officer recorded reasons as required under section 148(2) and reopened the assessments for the earlier three years under section 147 of the Act and issued notices on 29.03.2004, 22.3.2005 and 14.7.2005 respectively. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer are identical for all the three years and are as under: –
The Finance Minister Shri P.Chidambaram exhorted the officers of Customs and Central Excise to make every effort to achieve the budgetary target for the collection of indirect taxes for the financial year 2012-13.
What would be the rate of Service tax where the service is provided by the Chartered Accountants prior to 01.04.2012 and the invoice is also issued prior to 01.04.2012 but the payment is received after 01.04.2012.
On Goods and Service Tax (GST) front, there is a news to cheer about. The Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers which met for two days on 28-29 January, 2012 cleared the major hurdles in introduction of GST.
After passing of 51% FDI in multi- brand retail in Lok Sabha, many big foreign players in retail sector have got the entry to extend their business operations in one of the world’s largest consumption driven economy.
We are of the considered opinion that the Finance Act, 2000 has made the complete procedure in its section 117. Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 reads as under: 117. Validation of certain action taken under Service Tax Rules. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority, sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid and to have always been valid as if the said sub-clauses had been in force at all material times and accordingly,-
Since the company’s counterclaim is by way of an unliquidated sum in damages, and the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim herein, the company is permitted to furnish security to the extent of the petitioner’s claim of Rs.1,41,38,347/- within a fortnight from date whereupon this petition will remain permanently stayed. The company says that it has instituted winding-up proceedings in respect of its claim against the petitioner under the agreement of April 7, 2010.
I am directed to say that the delay in filing of SLP is a serious cause of concern. One of the reasons for delay in filing of SLP is inordinate delay in receiving the SLP proposals in the Directorate of Legal & Research. Even after conveying the concern of the Board in this regard, it is observed that about 50% proposals are received after 60 days of the date of impugned judgment of High Court as against 21 days prescribed in instruction No. 4 of 2011 laying down the SOP for filing SLP.
In the present case, the assessees being the builders, had the option to recognize their income either on percentage completion method or on project completion method. Therefore, it was not certain to hold that the assessees were liable at all to file returns under section 139(1). Whether the assessees had recognized their income for the impugned assessment years is also not clear. The returns were filed after search made under section 132 but before the issue of notice under section 153A.
