Taxpayers, who hold foreign bank accounts or properties, will now have to furnish details of their foreign assets which include information like country name, address of the bank, name mentioned in the account and peak balance during the year etc.
Exemptions and beneficial amendments are always prone to litigation – whether it is due to ambiguous language or due to creative interpretational skills of Revenue officers. Whatever be the reason, the departmental authorities are always less interested in extending the benefit of exemptions to the assessees. One such beneficial provision is being inserted in the negative list which exempts the processes that amount to manufacture or production from the levy under service tax. This piece of diction is about probable litigation on this item of negative list.
As per provisions in Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India), Rules 2006 the question whether the service in question is imported is decided with reference to location of the recipient of service for service specified under section 65(105)(r) but is decided with reference to place of performance for service specified at section 65(105)(y). That is to say if the impugned service is classified as Management Consultancy, service tax is payable in the instant case but if it was classifiable as service of Market Research Agency then tax was not payable for the reason that the service is performed entirely outside India.
The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Future Polyesters Ltd. [Final Order No. 782 of 2011, dated 8-7-2011] is clearly to the effect that most of the impugned activities would not fall under the definition of Management Consultancy service. Though compliance with laws is part of the responsibilities of management such responsibility per se cannot bring it into the ambit of the words ‘in connection with the management of any organization’ used in section 65 (105)(r) and section 65(65) to tax such services
It is no longer, res integra that in a contract for providing service of the type involved in this case the service component and value of materials can be separated. Notification 12/2003-ST also recognises this principle. The only dispute that remains is whether value of materials sold “can be segregated based just on the value on which VAT is paid.
As observed by the lower authorities, according to Clause 2(f), the claim has to be filed within 1 year from the date of export of goods. As already observed, this becomes a statutory requirement and a substantive requirement and therefore, the Tribunal, being a creature of law, cannot go beyond the provisions of law and statutes and give relief.
Ld. CIT(A) on pages 51-52 of his order that the assessee could not provide even the names and addresses of those parties to whom cash sales were claimed to have been made. This is the main basis on which Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the decision of the A.O. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that in the case of cash sales, the assessee is bound to keep record of the names and addresses of the buyers. The judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited by the Ld. A.R. rendered in the case of R B Gurnam Fatehchand vs ACIT as reported in 75 ITR 33 also supports the case of the assessee. In that case also, the assessee was not in a position to give the addresses of the customers to whom cash sales were made. Under these facts, it was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that this cannot be the basis to reject the book results.
Notification No. 28/2012-Income Tax Whereas an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (DTAA) was signed at New Delhi on 26th July, 2011;
Notification No. 27/2012-Income Tax Whereas an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Estonia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income was signed at Tallinn, Estonia, on 19th day of September, 2011;
Tribunal decision in the case of ITO Vs Gyani Exports as reported in 94 TTJ 557 wherein, it was held that gain from foreign exchange fluctuation as eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by Ld. D.R. and hence, on this issue also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
