Reason for reopening of the assessment was a mistaken factual premise that the Assessee had changed the system of accounting from the mercantile to the cash system. It was more than adequately explained by the Assessee that this was an inadvertent error.
The petitioner No. 1 is the registered owner of Maruti Zen bearing registration No. CG.04/ZD 7655. The said vehicle was found involved in commission of offence punishable under Sections 9, 44, 51, 25 & 26(28) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (henceforth ‘Act of 1972’) and Criminal Case No. 647/2012 was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazaar titled as State of Chhatisgarh v. Mohammad Shoaib & another and same is pending consideration.
Delhi High Court has directed by its order to Union of India that till the next date the operation of the execution of para 1(a) (i) (b) of Notification No.9/2016-ST, para 1(a) (iii) and (b) (iii) of Notification No.18/2016-ST and para 2 (1) (a) of Notification No.19/2016-ST be and is hereby stayed and the Respondents are directed to continue the reverse charge mechanism for payment of service tax for Senior Advocates under Notification No.30/2012-ST.
As per amendment, the time limit for initiation of proceedings for assessee in default is four years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. It is proposed to make these amendments effective from 1st April, 2010 i.e. there was no time limit mentioned before this amendment.
It is a settled law that reopening based on change in opinion is not permitted. In the current case, revenue does not discovered another concealed permanent establishment but wanted to link the royalty received by the Petitioner by applying the principle of force of attraction to business income of PE in India.
The petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate practising in this Court and challenges notifications bearing nos. 9/2016 and 18/2016, both dated March 1, 2016, seeking to amend previous notifications of June 30, 2012 pertaining to service tax.
Honble Gujarat High Court has vide its order dated 30th March, 2016 in the case of Percy Cawas Kavina vs. UOI in Special Civil Application No. 4926 of 2016 directed an ad-interim stay of Notification No. 18/2016-ST Dated 01/03/2016and Notification No. 9/2016–ST Dated-01/03/2016 with respect to the levy of service-tax on senior advocates as proposed
Finding of the ITAT that no material was placed on record by the Assessee to demonstrate the nature of service rendered by the three companies to whom the commission was paid has been concurrently upheld by this Court.
Delhi High Court held that It is well settled that the in a case of amalgamation, the amalgamating company would stand dissolved from the date on which the amalgamation/transfer takes effect. In a recent decision dated 3rd August, 2015 in ITA No. 475/2011 SPICE Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
The loan transactions were on the capital account and the writing off the loan was also on capital account and did not find place in the Profit and Loss Account. Apart from this it has been found as a matter of fact that the assessee had not got the benefit of any allowance or deduction in the assessment for any prior year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by assessee.
