As per the revised procedure, a software exporter either under STPIs or SEZs/EPZs/100%EOU/DTA, whose annual turnover is at least Rs.1000 crore or who files at least 600 SOFTEX forms annually on all India basis, will be eligible to submit statements in revised excel format sheets as per enclosed Annexures A & B. All other terms and conditions mentioned in the A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.80 dated February 15, 2012 applicable to exporters of software situated in STPIs would remain unchanged.
SEBI vide circular IMD/FIIC/1/2012 dated January 3, 2012 had provided the facility of re-investment of up to two years from the date of the circular or to the extent of twice the size of the debt portfolio, to those FIIs and sub-accounts that had already acquired limits and/or invested in debt in the manner prescribed in the said circular. The facility of reinvestment period was not allowed for all new allocations of debt limits to FIIs/sub-accounts after the issuance of the said circular.
The High Court had failed to notice that in view of the express provisions of the Act an assessee was entitled to compensation by way of interest on the delay in the payment of amounts lawfully due to the assessee which were withheld wrongly and contrary to the law by the department for an inordinate long period of up to 17 years.
A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
Assessee has objected to the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority and has also filed the valuation report by an Approved Valuer in support of the actual fair market value. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 50C, provides that where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer,
There is also no dispute as to the fact the water pumped from river Kundalika is used as a coolant in the manufacturing process. If that be so, the pumping of water from the banks of river Kundalika is integrally connected to the manufacturing process and the security services used therein becomes an input service in terms of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In the case before us, admittedly no plans were made, therefore, there is no question of getting the same approved. Apart from this, the ld. counsel of the assessee admitted that assessee has no evidence to prove that assessee wanted to start construction. If the tax is allowed to be postponed merely on the basis of purchase of plot then no assessee would pay correct taxes during the year
The allegation of the revenue that service has been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax liability is not sustainable as per section 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the ‘assessee’ means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. In this case, appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as her agent to discharge her service tax liability on her behalf and same has been discharged by M/s Matrix.
It is noted that the appropriation of the amounts, to the extent of Rs.18,32,782/-, towards the alleged service tax dues said to be payable by the petitioner, from the amount of Rs.47,00,094/- said to be due to the petitioner as export duty rebate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioner ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the second respondent had appropriated the said amount towards the alleged excise duty liability of the petitioner.
Admittedly, the Chartered Accountant’s certificate to the effect that sale is on FOR basis and all expenses incurred up to the buyers premises form part of the cost of final product. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held in favour of the appellant, when he observed that the purchase orders are on FOR basis and it is the appellant who has to bear the freight and insurance by arranging transportation of the goods.
