Circular No. 10T of 2011. The State Government has issued a Government Resolution referred above providing administrative relief for the period 1st April 2005 to 31st December 2010 to the dealers who have collected and paid tax in respect of duty paid scrips which were tax-free prior to 1st January 2011 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
A careful perusal of the appointment order issued to the doctors shows that a fixed monthly amount was paid by the assessee as remuneration and it is in no way concerned with the fees received from the patients treated by them. The appointment letter was issued to the concerned doctor on the basis of his application. The doctors are governed by the service rules of the assessee.
In view of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in various cases the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006, i.e., the date of enactment of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F No. 275/7/2010- CX8A, dated 30.6.2010 stands rescinded.
Appellants made a request before the adjudicating authority for an opportunity to produce evidence to show that the cost of design and drawing are included in the assessable value of patterns/castings and appropriate duty is paid. This contention has not been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh upon showing the proof of deposit of the amount so directed and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
The first allegation relates to transfer of funds in the bank account of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant has transferred funds from its bank account earmarked in clients trading transactions to the bank account earmarked for its own business operations. In other words, there was no proper segregation of the funds relating to the broker and the client.
The first issue being: the treatment to be accorded to expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchase of software applications. These applications being: MS Office Software, Anti Virus software, Lotus Notes Software and Message Exchange applications. The assessee in respect of these applications acquired a licence to use the said applications on payment of consideration. The said expenditure has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer in each of the assessment years by treating the expenditure as one incurred on capital account. Accordingly, depreciation at the rate of 25% was allowed to the assessee.
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mir Mohammed Ali [1964] 53 ITR 165 had considered the meaning of the word ‘machinery’ and pointed out that the word is not a technical term and in the absence of any definition under the Act, ordinary meaning would prevail. Indeed rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules treats aero-engines separately from aircraft, but this cannot be used to interpret the clauses in the Act that what was purchased and installed was machinery and after installation, a wider meaning has to be given to the said term.
Normally, transportation is after or post manufacture. The onus was on the assessee to show and establish that, because of the peculiarity of facts, transportation charges should be treated as sale proceeds or part of sale proceeds of the goods manufactured and were intrinsically connected and had live link with the manufacturing activity. In the absence of aforesaid evidence and material placed by the assessee, the transportation charges cannot be treated as profit and gain derived from the manufacturing activity, which qualifies for deduction under section 80-I.
The assessee, while filing her initial return of income, disclosed her income to be Rs. 1.34 lakhs in the relevant assessment year and the said return finds mention of receiving gift of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from ‘A’. In the revised return the said amount of gift was declared as part of her income. Thus, there was no concealment in respect of above amount in filing the return. She further surrendered a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs as additional income which was also received by her as gift from one ‘U’. In this manner her taxable income was computed to be Rs. 6.34 lakhs by adding the aforesaid two amounts of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each as finally disclosed.
In our considered opinion the order passed by the Assessing Officer shows complete non application of mind. He has not discussed as to what was the difference between the value estimated by the departmental valuer as also given by the assessee’s valuer and what was the reason for determining the income at such a low figure. The Commissioner was therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside the assessment in exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
