Delhi HC declares Rule 5A(2) as amended in terms of Notification No. 23/2014- Service Tax dated 5th December 2014 of the Central Government, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production of the documents mentioned therein on demand is ultra vires the FA and, therefore, strikes it down to that extent;
Held by Hon’ble Delhi HC-Rule 5A(2) as amended in terms of Notification No. 23/2014-Service Tax dated 5th December 2014 of the Central Government, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG to seek production of the documents mentioned therein on demand is ultra vires to the FA and, therefore, strikes it down to that extent;
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon various decisions of the High Court and of the Apex Court, but in none of the decisions, the question arisen before the respective Court as to whether the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal can be disturbed or upset at the stage of appeal before this Court, which is limited to the question of law. All decisions proceed on the basis that the nexus is established, which as per the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is not established in the present case. Hence, the said decisions are of no help to the appellant.
Under one time settlement the bank waived loan amount (used by the assessee for acquiring capital assets) which includes both principal amount of loan and interest on loan. Held that Waiver of loan is taxable under section (‘u/s’) 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the above cited case held that exempting cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of deliveryof entertainment in both the services.
The waiver of a portion of the loan would certainly tantamount to the value of a benefit. This benefit may not arise from the business of the assessee. But, it certainly arises from business. The absence of the prefix “the” to the word “business” makes a world of difference.
It was held that Once the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings was altered by the CIT (A) in a significant way, the very basis of initiation of the penalty proceedings was rendered non-existent. The AO could not have thereafter continued the penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice.
As civil work and electric generator are taken to be a part of windmill, rate as is applicable for the depreciation for windmill would apply to the civil foundation and electric turbine generator also.
It is held that Instruction No.1 of 2015 dated 13th January 201shall not hereafter be relied upon to deny refunds to the Assessees in whose cases notices might have been issued under Section 143(2) of the Act.
Amount deposited but not utilized wholly or partly for purchase or construction of new asset within the specified period will be charged to tax under Section 45 in the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of original asset expired.
