There were expectations that the 7th budget of Pranab Mukherjee might contain progressive development oriented proposals, so that despite political provocations and vagaries, the optimism of progress and growth could have held centre stage. But it has belied that promise, though some eminent Economists called it, a budget by the Book.
The rates are for the previous Year 2012-13: 1. Income Tax Rates 1.1 For Individuals, Hindu Undivided Families, Association of Persons and Body of Individuals
Proposal to introduce negative list approach to taxation of services will enhance the share of service tax in the total tax revenue manifolds. The services specified in the negative list shall remain outside the service tax purview. This approach brings almost all the services under the tax net barring 17 heads of service listed in the negative list. Negative list includes most of the services provided by Government for local authority, services provided by Reserve Bank of India, foreign diplomatic missions located in India, cultivation services, trading of goods, betting, gambling, approved vocational educational education, etc.
General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) proposed to be introduced in the Income -tax Act, 1961 to check aggressive tax planning. Earlier, the Direct Taxes Co de Bill, 2010 had proposed to introduce GAAR. • Transfer pricing provisions proposed to be introduced in respect of specified domestic transactions exceeding the prescribed threshold. • Clarifications in sections 9 and 195 in the context of judicial decisions to tax gains from off-shore transactions where the underlying assets are located in India.
As per the budget proposal, metered taxis, entry to amusement facilities, second-class rail travel, and betting, gambling and lottery will not attract the 12 per cent Service Tax. The negative list of services, on which the increased Service Tax of 12 per cent will not be levied, include admission to entertainment events, access to amusement facilities and travel by radio taxis and auto rickshaws. Other important services which will not attract the tax include funeral, burial, mutate services and transport of deceased.
The notification dated 5th June, 2007 issued in terms of the proviso does not help the appellants. The proviso itself stipulated that the Government by a notification in the official gazette can withdraw the concession. Thus, the State Government had retained their right to ask the appellants to pay enhanced VAT on the basis of enhanced/increased sale price with effect from 6th June, 2006 by issue of a notification and an amendment to the Act was not necessary. The last part of the proviso was to operate and was applicable in a different situation. This does not mean that the proviso has to be read in a manner that it is applied even after the roll back of the prices of petrol and diesel to the pre 6th June, 2006 level.
In the case of DDIT, Mumbai V/S M/s. Star Cruises (India) Travel Services P. Ltd. vs. 2009-TIOL-351-ITAT-Mumbai Tribunal has again considered identical situation in which the tax was paid in consequence of the order passed by the A.O. u/s.195(2) in the said case, and also after considering Circular No.769 dated 06.08.1998 and Circular No.790 dated 24.02.2000 issued by the CBDT held that assessee is entitled for interest under sec. 244A of the Act.
It is clear from the finding of the CIT (A) that while deciding the issue of setting off of brought forward loss, the crucial and vital fact of date of filing the return and revised return has been overlooked. In view of these facts, the order of the CIT (A) is not sustainable. We, accordingly, are of the opinion that if the assessee has filed the return well within the time as prescribed u/s 139(1), then the claim of setting off of brought forward loss made in revised return filed within the time limit as prescribed u/s 139(5) cannot be disallowed. Consequently, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for limited purpose of verifying the date of filing of the return and revised return and then allow the claim of the assessee, if the return of income is filed within the period of limitation.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the tax effect in the present case is below Rs.3 lakh and we find that as per this Board instruction No.3 dated 9.2.2011, the limit of tax effect for filing the appeal before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.3 lakhs and the same for filing appeal before Hon’ble High Court has been increased to Rs.10 lakhs. In the case of CIT v. Rajan Ramanee (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has applied this Board instruction dated 9.2.2011 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue because of low tax effect.
U/s 250(4), the CIT (A) has the power to direct enquiry and call for evidence from the assessee. Under Rule 46A, the assessee has the right to ask for the admission of additional evidence. If the CIT (A) exercises his powers u/s 250(4) to call for additional evidence, the AO need not be given an opportunity to show-cause. However, if the CIT (A) acts on an application under Rule 46A, then the requirement of giving the AO an opportunity as per Rule 46A(3) is mandatory. The argument that in all cases where additional evidence is admitted, the CIT (A) should be considered to have exercised his powers u/s 250(4) is not acceptable as it will render Rule 46A redundant.
