This article is a short description about the taxability of the services provided by Industrial canteens maintained in a factory under the Factories Act,1948. It is to be analysed on the basis of :- 1. the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 – ST dated 20.06.2012 and 2. the Amended Notification No. 14/2013-ST dated 22/10/2013. Under the […]
W.e.f. 01.09.2014, a time limit of six months from the date of the document was introduced to avail CENVAT credit on inputs and input services. This restriction was introduced by inserting 3rd proviso to Rule 4(1) of CCR-2004 vide Notification No. 21/2014 CE NT Dt. 11.07.2014. This time limit of six months has been enhanced to one year with effect from 01.03.2015, vide Notification 6/2015 CE NT Dt. 01.03.2015.
Recently, the Central Government vide Notification No. 21/2015-ST and 22/2015-ST, both dated November 6, 2015 had appointed November 15, 2015 as the date from which, Swachh Bharat Cess (SB Cess) at the rate of 0.5% on value of all taxable services shall be applicable. However, a sudden imposition of SB Cess created lot of confusions like to calculate value of taxable services under Abatement Notification, treatment of SB Cess on ongoing transactions, availability of Cenvat credit of SB Cess, etc.
CBEC vide various Circulars/Instructions had laid down simplified procedures for sanction and disbursal of refund claims in the past under various notifications. Now, the Board has issued yet another circular in order to facilitate fast track sanction of refund of accumulated Cenvat credit to exporter of services vide Circular No. 187/6/2015-Service Tax dated November 10, 2015.
The claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the return of income included depreciation of wind mill @ 80% and additional depreciation @ 20% as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s claim of additional depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that additional depreciation
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Parul Bhupendra Patel vs. ITO held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of doubting certain information filed in the return of income and reopening assessment on that basis is not valid in law as AO had not obtained any new tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Admittedly, the assessee had made payments to M/s Pickme Feeds in cash by directly depositing cash in the bank account of M/s Pickme Feeds for supply of poultry feeds to the assessee. The assessee in turn supplies the poultry feeds to various farmers in the rural areas.
DCIT V/s. M/s AT & S India Pvt Ltd.(ITAT Kolkata) Reimbursement of Information technology costs does not result in income in the hands of the recipient an hence, the payments are allowable deductions and not fall within the mischief of section 40(a)(i) read with section 195.
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that the non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
