There can be no concealment or non-disclosure, as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes of tax and therefore no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be levied. The words ‘in the course of any proceedings under this Act’ in Sec. 271(1)(c ) of the Act are prefaced by the satisfaction of the AO or the CIT(A).
The matter was examined by the Board and a view emerged that in the manner of ICDs/CFSs other Customs facilities – Seaports, Air Cargo Complexes, Courier Terminals and Diamond Plazas – would merit similar exemption from the payment of cost recovery
Commission has no jurisdiction to hand over the possession of plot in question to the complainant; that is the task of the Civil Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the closest term has restrained to this Commission from assuming the power of the Civil Court. It is also clarified in the paragraph that this Court cannot grant any specific performance.
It was observed by the CLB that if the Appellants failed to cooperate with NHEL for the determination of the value of the occupied premises, including land, plant and machinery and do not accept the fair value of the assets determined, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order thus makes it impossible for the Appellants to even question the valuation. Having succeeded in demonstrating oppression by the Respondents, the Appellants cannot be compelled to accept an arbitrary and unilateral determination of the fair value by the Respondents not based on any sound financial and accounting principles. The remedy provided by the CLB has thus been rendered illusory.
1. 1) These rules may be called the Service Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2013. (2) They shall come into force on and from the 1st day of June, 2013. 2. For Form No. S.T.-5, S.T.-6 and S.T.-7 appended to the said rules, the following Forms shall respectively be substituted, namely
There cannot be any dispute that Karanataka High Court has specifically held that the provisions of the MRTP Act were not and could not be applicable to the educational institutions. There is no dispute that the present complaint also pertains to the educational institution and its activity of imparting education.
Since the entire services were rendered outside India having nothing to do with the permanent establishment, there can be no taxability of this amount in India. Further in para (12) it has been held that the offshore services are inextricably linked to the supply of goods, so it must be considered in the same manner.
the commission or brokerage definition does not include transactions in securities. There is no doubt that Mutual Funds are categorised as securities on which there is no objection from the Revenue either before the A.O. or before the CIT(A). In fact the CIT(A) also gives a finding that the A.O. has not disputed that units of Mutual Funds are securities as per Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Assessee is in the business of Mutual Funds distribution and investment agent.
The words used in Article 12(1) was ‘paid to a resident of other contracting state’. The term royalties also means “payment of any kind received”. Since the word used in the DTAA is ‘paid’ or ‘received’, assessee’s contention that amounts cannot be taxed on accrual basis is correct. This interpretation is also supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (IT) v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft ITA no 124 of 2010 dt.22.10.12 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on a question as follows:
Further it is clarified that fee payable for forms on/till 16-01-2013 will remain payable along with additional fee and relaxation of any additional fee will be considered for forms on or after 17-01-2013.
