F. No. 450/25/2009-Cus.lV While reviewing various measures put in place for trade facilitation in recent months including the ;Customs Clearance Facilitation Committee, the Board has felt that Commissioners and Chief Commissioners need to increase their involvement by closely monitoring pending Bills of Entry.
I think the word Cess included in the name has created lot of fog in the minds of the tax payer as to whetherSwachh Bharat Cess should be applied on service tax value or on the value of services. To remove the doubts of tax payers, the CBEC came with a FAQ, a couple of days back giving clarity with good examples for all the pattern of payments.
In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and in supersession of the Income Tax Department non statutory Departmental Canteens Recruitment Rules 2004.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT that there is no human intervention involved in providing roaming services, therefore, roaming charges paid by the assessee do not amount to fee for technical services u/s 194J.
ITAT held in Pooja Industries Vs ITO that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied only because that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IC @ 100% instead of deduction u/s 80IB. Penalty could only be levied only
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ACIT that any loss arising to banks on account of classification of securities form one category to another category in compliance with RBI directions is an allowable expense.
ITAT Pune held In the case of ACIT vs. RDS Construction Pvt. Ltd. that on the matter of adjustment of seized cash with the self assessment tax, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) since the assessee vide letter dated 30-03-2010
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services that section 80HHC does not place any restriction to shift the claim of deduction or exemption under any other provision in respect of profits for which no deduction has been claimed and allowed in the previous year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
ITAT held in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that if the case of assessee was decided in the earlier assessment years and if the facts and circumstances were same as in the previous years ,then in the current year also same basis for assessment should be adopted.
