Of late, the issue regarding the taxability of the remuneration and living allowance, etc. payable to a foreign technician on deputation in India under a Technical Collaboration or Assistance Agreement, has become quite controversial. At the root of this controversy, are the provisions of S. 9(1)(ii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Section 9 of the Act deals with “Income deemed to accrue or arise in India”.
Notification No. 3/2016-Central Excise (N.T.) Seeks to amend Notification No. 45/2001 – CE (NT) dated 26th June, 2001, as amended, to allow export of material/equipment under bond, without payment of Central Excise duty, for Kholongchhu Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) in Bhutan
Notification No. 02/2016-Central Excise (N.T.) Seeks to amend CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so as to i. specify that the Cenvat credit of any duty specified in sub-rule (1) shall not be utilized for payment of the Swachh Bharat Cess. ii. allow credit of service tax paid on sale of dutiable goods on commission basis.
There has been prevailing in the Income-Tax Department a very erroneous impression that under the provisions of the amended section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), with effect from 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer (AO) has got unbridled powers to assess or reassess income which has escaped assessment. This is so, particularly, in respect of cases where no assessment has been made under section 143(3) of the Act
Selection and appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) has to be made in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the judgments of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE [1996 taxmann.com 736 (SC)] and Leotronics Scales (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE [Final Order No. 50894 of 2015, dated 23-1-2015], held that when the Appellant has reversed the Cenvat credit amount inadvertently availed earlier along with the interest from the date of availment upto the date of reversal of credit, benefit of abatement cannot be denied.
Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the plethora of judgments and by observing various provisions in this regard, held that in the instant case, buyer has borne risk of damage to goods during transit and freight charges were an integral part of price of goods sold by the Respondent to its buyers.
CESTAT, Allahabad relying upon plethora of judicial pronouncements held that in the instant case, BSNL has already paid Service tax on the SIM cards and recharge coupons sold to the Appellant and therefore, again demanding Service tax from the Appellant would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible in law.
CESTAT, Mumbai held that when freight charges are to the buyer’s account, merely because these are not mentioned separately is no reason to conclude that sale is not complete at the factory gate. Further, transport charges recovered from buyer through debit notes cannot be a ground for denying substantial benefit under the law laid down in Section 4 of the Excise Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act as was prevalent during the relevant period, the value of the goods which are imported was to be fixed at the price on which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale.
