Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Union of India[1], notwithstanding, we are now called upon, in this batch of Writ Petitions, to adjudicate on the jurisdiction of the revisional/ appellate/ assessing authorities to levy tax under Section 4(1) and (8) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on SIM cards – pre-paid and post-paid; recharge coupons; value added services; telephone instruments, mobile handsets, modems and caller ID instruments; mobile telephone rentals; sharing of infrastructure; non-refundable deposits; refundable deposits etc.
The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against the income tax authorities without specifying a new date for next hearing. The Bombay high court on Tuesday deferred a hearing on Vodafone Plc’s petition against t
All these appeals are filed against the order of CESTAT dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to make payment of predeposit amount of Rs.3 crores as ordered by the CESTAT. Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.
Rahuljee & Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court) -The importers who got the goods cleared on the basis of licences purchased by them through one, Gautam Chaterjee and these licences had ultimately turned out to be forged and fabricated licences purported to be issued in the names of different licence holders. – order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by CESTAT confirming the order in Original of the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty upon the appellants is sustainable.
No action can be taken under the section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year
Where the revenue has failed to establish before the Court that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the exercise of the power to re-open the assessment beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would fail to fulfill the statutory condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power to re-open an assessment beyond a period of four years
The work that the respondents perform is in the nature of a creative art and their work is neither subject to an order required from the Art Director nor from any of the artists. In performing their work, they have to bring to their work, their artistic ability, talent and a sense of perception for the purpose of production of drama involving in the course of such work, the application of the correct technique and the selection of the cast, the play, the manner of presentation, the light and effects and so on. In effect, the work they do is creative art which only a person with an artistic talent and requisite technique can manage. To call such a person, a skilled or a manual worker is altogether inappropriate.
The Assessee for the relevant year filed return declaring “Nil” income. He case though processed under Section 143(1) was selected for scrutiny. The Assessee had shown the gross total income for the relevant year as Rs.6,92,453/- and deducted therefrom the amount applied for charitable purposes to the extent of Rs.27,28,001/-. The Assessee had made application of income by donation of Rs.26,66,000/- comprising of donation of Rs.25 lacs to BLB Trust as corpus donation and Rs.1,66,000/- to others. The source of the balance amount over and above the income of Rs.6, 92,453/- was from FDR encashment, MIP units a
In the light of the concurrent findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, it is apparent that the assessee had bona fide made a claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which came to be rectified by filing a revised return withdrawing the claim and that as such there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the notice under section 154 of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer also does not remotely indicate anything to that effect. In the circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.
Where the so called new unit set up by the assessee was merely an expansion of its existing business and was not setting up of a new business, the expenses incurred in that regard were allowable as revenue expenses.
