The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act.
We are of the view that even if technically, scope of sections 76 and 78 of the Act may be different, as submitted on behalf of the revenue, the fact that penalty has been levied under section 78 could be taken into account for levying or not levying penalty under section 76 of the Act. In such situation, even if reasoning given by the appellate authority that if penalty under section 78 of the Act was imposed, penalty under section 76 of the Act could never be imposed may not be correct,
Since no assessment order can be passed after the expiry of the prescribed time-limit, no proceeding can be taken in it. Moreover, proceeding for assessment/reassessment under section 147 are specifically excluded from the purview of case as defined under Section 245A(b). Thus, there is no question of proceedings of the type which are subject matter of this petition can be said to be pending.
Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that insofar as the second reason is concerned, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings with a view to ‘examine’ whether the assessee had accumulated reserve. Obviously, the scope of section 147 cannot encompass such an action under which certain examination is to be conducted for forming a reason to believe as to the escapement of income.
In the present case, the evidence in the form of confirmatory letters, deed of gifts etc. were found during the course of search. The authorities on examination of the confirmatory letters and surrounding circumstances reached a prima facie view that the gifts were not genuine. A notice dated 27.06.1996 under Section 158BC of the Act was accordingly issued.
Department is in appeal against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short), dated 6-8-2009 by which appeal of the department came to be dismissed. The issue pertains to filing of general declaration instead of consignment-wise declaration by assessee declaring that cenvat credit is not available.
With effect from 01.12.2012, one of the passengers booked on a ticket for undertaking journey in any reserved class will have to produce any one of the prescribed proofs of identity failing which all the passengers will be treated as travelling without ticket and charged accordingly.
Instances of alleged corruption for settlement of refund claims and complaints come to notice from time to time. Whenever any such instance or complaints comes to notice, the same is verified and if it is found to be correct, the concerned officers/officials have to face penal consequences depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Software is not exempted from Service Tax because it does not appear in the List of Negative Services. Service Tax shall be levied or not is decided on case to case basis depending upon the location of service recipients. If the service recipient is located outside India, Service Tax is not leviable.
The present society is doing its business and charging huge fees from the public which was in addition to the prescribed fee of the Punjab Government. Even otherwise, the fees charged by the present society is in addition to the burden forced upon the common-man. Because of this service has to be rendered by the Punjab Government free of cost to the public against the fee prescribed in the chart as reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs.
