On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 07/06/2007 held that foreign travel of the officers did not give rise to any benefit of an enduring nature but enabled efficient running of its business and therefore was revenue in nature. Thus the deduction on account of expenses on account of foreign travel was allowed as claimed by the respondent.
In the original assessment order deduction under section 80I had been granted on the total income, inclusive of the income under section 68 of the Act. The grant of such deduction was not questioned by the revenue at the relevant time. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the same was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue pertaining to addition of Rs. 59,56,000/- credited in the books of account by way of share application money on the ground that the same was an unexplained credit out of income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.
In the present case, lead and zinc concentrates were received by the assessee in its factory whereupon credit had been taken. The assessee had accounted for the shortage in the raw material found during stock taking by writing off these losses. The percentage of shortage found had been about 0.05% during the subject period. The explanation given by the assessee had been that the loss occurred due to dryage of the moisture content and some likely difference in weighment. The significant aspect of the matter is that it had not been the case of the revenue that any part of the duty paid inputs were diverted from the factory with intent to evade duty.
In respect of port service, THC charges, REPO/BL charges etc. whether service provider was authorised or not, if the service tax has been paid towards port service, while granting refund, the refund sanctioning authority cannot sit in judgment to say that the service received was not port service. Once the services are covered under the statutory definition of port service and service tax has been paid, refund is admissible.
CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH B.E. Billimoria & Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Application No. ST/S/729 of 2012 Appeal No. ST/211 of 2012 June 5, 2012 ORDER Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Appellant are in appeal against the impugned order confirming the service tax demand of Rs. 14,28,30,465/- along with interest and equivalent penalty […]
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), sub-sections (2) and (2A) of section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), section 93A and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section
The Supreme Court today said that Khap panchayats’ diktat on dress code for women and asking them not to carry mobile is unlawful.A bench of justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai said such diktats are against the fundamental right to life and asked Khap Panchayats (caste-based councils) to file their replies on the issue.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the
The intent and purport of the CBDT circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 is to demonstrate that a tax payer could have two portfolios, namely, an investment portfolio and a trading portfolio. In other words, the assessee could own shares for the purposes of investment and/or for the purposes of trading.
A number of countries have provided for General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) in matters relating to taxation. While tax mitigation is recognized, tax avoidance is frowned upon. International literature describes tax avoidance as the legal exploitation of tax laws to one’s own advantage and an arrangement entered into solely or primarily for the purpose of obtaining a tax advantage.
