The Department appears to have sent a proposal to the Finance Department which had approved it on 4th September 2012 and after the same was received back alongwith necessary papers and orders permitting the Office of the Government Pleader to file Tax Appeal, it appears that the Tax Appeal which was to be filed on or before 10th November 2009, came to be filed after a huge delay of 1226 days on 27th November 2012. What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy us.
In this case the assessee’s contention for interest under section 244A was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that according to section 244A(2), if the proceedings resulting in refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable. The Assessing Officer held that from the records it is seen that the above condition was directly applicable to the assessee’s case. He observed that the assessee-company was not able to produce the original documents and these were procured by the assessee-company much later to assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that no interest under section 244A was to be granted.
The AO has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had vide a letter dated 4/3/2002 voluntarily offered for taxation by disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,54,260/-. In view of the said voluntary offer, the impugned amount was added back to the income of the assessee. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, it was held that the impugned amount was offered for taxation and it was not a case of mistaken impression of law, therefore, in the absence of any other material, the action of the AO was upheld.
In this case, assessee was given ESOP by Gillette Co. In his submissions and ESOP plan it has been observed that these ESOPs are cashless. Assessee has to pay nothing on exercise of ESOP. The assessee has been granted ESOP in earlier years without any cost. On the date of exercise the amount under ESOP to the assessee was deducted from the sale proceeds and the difference amount between sale proceed and exercise price amounting to Rs. 1,07,35,727 (less transfer expenses) has directly been credited on 7th March, 2006 in assessee’s bank account.
The safeguard built in section 50C does envisage a situation that whenever assessee claims that the fair market value of the property is less than the stamp duty valuation of the property, a reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer and all these issues relating to valuation of the property – either on the issue of allowing a reasonable margin for market variations, or on the issue of making adjustments for agreements having been entered long ago, can be taken up, before the Departmental Valuation Officer and, therefore, subsequent appellate forums as well.
The assessee has made payment for commission and has been rendered services in consideration of the same. As a matter of fact, it is not even revenue’s case that no services have been rendered at all.
n exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3, for the period from 1st October 2012 to 31st March 2013, from 25th April, 2013 to 31st August, 2013. The circumstanc
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund in all Rs.25 Lakhs seized from the petitioners on 17th of October, 2006 along with interest at the prevalent rate as provided for under section 132 B(4) for the period 16.12.2007 to 31.12.2008 and simple interest under section 244A on the said amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from 1st of January, 2009 to the date of actual payment at the rate of 18 per cent per annum within a period of two months, failing which they shall also be liable to pay the interest on interest amount @ 6 % per annum, as indicated above.
The petitioner prays that the notification should be quashed in so far as it seeks to subject the activities of a business chit fund companies to service tax to the extent of 70% of the consideration received for the services. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no question of exempting a part of the consideration received for the services in chit fund business when the law provides that such services are not taxable at all in the first place.
Since the issue of LIBOR has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in various cases as relied upon by the assessee (supra); therefore, to maintain the rule of consistency, we follow the decision of the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, and accept LIBOR for benchmarking interest on interest free loans to AEs. Since the LIBOR is a rate applicable in the transactions between the banks and further the loans advanced by the bank to clients are secure by security and guarantee; therefore, a loan which has been advanced without any security or guarantee as in the case of the assessee has to be benchmark by taking the Arm’s Length interest rate as LIBOR plus.
