Question whether the place where goods are stored after clearance from the factory on payment of duty can be considered as place of removal for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is no longer res integra because of the clarification issued by the CBEC in the matter.
Honourable Madras High Court in case of A.S. Jayakumar (supra) has held that unless there is a proof for extra consideration paid by the purchaser over and above what is stated in the sale deed, section 52(2) of the I T Act cannot be invoked.
So far as pre June 2008 position is concerned, tax withholding obligations under section 194 C in respect of an individual only in cases where the payments were made to a sub contractor for carrying out a part off work, or the work itself, undertaken by the assessee and that too when such individual’s turnover from business or profession exceeded threshold specified in section 44AB.
Assessee participated in the enquiry conducted under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act and had also made a statement confirming the purchase of the land. Subsequent thereto, the assessee had participated in the enquiry and on 15.5.2002, in response to the notice under Section 142(1)
If we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we notice from the admitted facts that the stage of impugned assessment is not an assessment made under section 147/148 of the Act after completion of block assessment but it is a case of original block assessment itself.
The Directorate had been receiving enquiries relating to applicability of Revised Schedule VI in Examinations of the Institute to be held in December 2012. All concerned were informed that the same would be applicable. It is observed that there is some confusion which has aroused due to some clarifications provided earlier.
The assessee received a donations which was not anonymous donations within the meaning of Section 11(3) of the Act because the receipts issued by the assessee trust were still in the custody of the department as the receipt books were impounded in the course of the survey and no confirmations were required to be filed by the assessee.
A perusal of the above contents of the written submissions filed by the assessee before the TPO shows that the data was provided by the assessee before the TPO concerning the international transaction pertaining to availing of intra group services by the assessee from its associate enterprises.
In the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. (supra) also ITAT, Hyderabad Bench held the similar view. In the present case, the AO has failed to bring any material on record on the basis of which it could be concluded that commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Unless the income is chargeable to tax in India, then tax is not required to be deducted u/s 195(1). From the facts and materials available on record, no definite conclusion can be made that the commission paid to foreign agents is chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) is not sustainable. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue. The grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.
In proceedings under Article 226, and that whether the presumption of liability can be rebutted under Section 179 has to be gone into before the tax authorities. Nonetheless, the Court here has to deal with the assessee’s fundamental argument that he is not liable to pay anything more than the tax (i.e. not liable to pay penalty or interest).
