Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G.S. Promoters v. Union of India reported in MIT-2010-574-HC] upheld the constitutionality of the levy of service tax on the deemed service while selling residential complex by builder to buyer.
Generally, the liability to pay service tax has been placed on the ‘service provider’. However, in respect of the taxable services notified under Sec.68(2) of the Finance Act,1994, the service tax shall be paid by such person and in such manner as ma
The assessee is a company. It is engaged in the business of corporate and project finance and merchant banking. The assessee had taken premises at Bardy House, Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 on rent. During the previous year, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 30,94,066/- in connection with renovation of the aforesaid leasehold premises. The assesse
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee received a gift of Rs.30,00,000/- from Mrs. Chandra Hingorani. The genuineness of the gift was examined by the Assessing Officer by considering the various documents including taking statements of the assessee which was recorded on 19.12.2006.
There is no reason or justification for the Court on the basis of the plain language used in sub-section (4) of section 234B to exclude the cases, where no interest has been levied on the assessee in the original order of assessment, from the liability to pay interest.
The assessee maintained regular books of account following recognized method of accounting. The assessee has shown 10.22% of G.P. for the year under consideration as against 6.78% GP of last year. Search and seizure actions were carried out on 14.6.2006.
This appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the Revenueis directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2001 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No. 44 of 1986. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has answered the following questions
Where the assessee company executed a works contract of design, development, commissioning etc., of an oil free compressor system for its client during the period 1997–2001 it was held that the assessee is not liable under ‘consulting engineering services’ – (i) since services rendered by ‘companies’ were not liable prior to 1.5.2006 under this category; (ii) since the assessee company’s service fall under works contract services which was brought into the ambit of service tax only w.e.f. 1.6.2007.
It has been held by various judicial pronouncements that unless proper method is followed, comparables are chosen and selected after doing a proper FAR study as well as adjustments are made to the extent possible it would be unfair to summarily reject the transfer pricing analysis made by the assessee
Once the rectification application filed by one of the parties is considered and decided by the Tribunal rightly or wrongly, another rectification application on same issue is not maintainable against the order issued by the Tribunal under section 254(2)
