Reopening of tax assessment beyond four years on the basis of a retrospective amendment is not justified, if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary during the original assessment proceedings
The issue before the HC relates to certain provisions in the Indian Tax Laws (ITL) that provide for taxability, as dividend, of certain advances or loans made by a company to another concern when the lender/borrower have a common shareholder with substantial interest (deemed dividend provisions). However, advance or loan is not treated as deemed dividend if it is made by the lending company in the ordinary course of its business and the lending of money is a substantial part of the company’s business.
The assessee-company allotted shares to four companies. The allottee companies were active as per the records of the ROC and were allotted PAN and assessed to income-tax. Though the assessee filed a return, no assessment u/s 143(3) was made. The AO s
Bombay High Court held in above case that the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on outdoor ‘catering services’ provided in the factory for employees. Ratio of Maruti Suzuki judgment been applied in the case.
Commission paid to private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis could not be allowed as a business expenditure. The amount which can be allowed as business expenditure has to be legitimate and not unlawful and against public policy.
Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited v. ACIT held that the discount given by the taxpayer at the time of sale of SIM Cards or Recharge coupons to the distributors is commission for the services rendered to the taxpayer. Accordingly, the taxpayer was liable to deduct tax at source on the commission under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assessee let out property on a rent of Rs. 90,000 per month and also received interest-free security deposit of Rs. 8.58 crores. The property was not subject to the Rent Control Act. The assessee claimed that only the rent could be taken into account for determining the ‘annual value’ of the property and not the notional interest on the deposit. The AO determined the ‘annual value’ u/s 23(1)(a) by adding Rs. 30 lakhs of notional interest. The CIT (A) and Tribunal deleted the addition by holding that the rateable value as determined by the MCD had to be taken as the “fair rent” u/s 23(1) (a) and the notional interest could not be added either u/s 23(1)(a) or u/s 23(1)(b). On appeal by the department HELD:
Pearey Lal Bhawan Association Vs M/S Satya Developers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Service Tax: whether the burden of service tax, levied on the service or facility of leasing (of the suit premises) should be borne by the lessor (i.e. the service provider) or the lessee (i.e. the defendant, user). – that unless a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, in case of the imposition or increase in the tax after the making of a contract, the party shall be entitled to be paid such tax or such increase. Although there is no explicit provision to that effect, enabling lessors such as the plaintiff, to the service tax component, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient internal indication in the Act, through Section 83 read with Section 12-A and Section 12-B suggesting that the levy is an indirect tax, which can be collected from the user (in this case, the lessee). This issue, is therefore, answered in the plaintiff’s favour, and against the defendant.
S. 234D inserted by the FA 2003 w.e.f. 1.6.2003 is in the nature of a substantive provision and applies only for the AY 2004-05 and onwards and is not retrospective. A provision by which an authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. ITO vs. Ekta Promoters 305 ITR 1 (SB) (Del) approved)
In answer to the question raised by the department as whether interest u/s 234D can be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to 1.6.2003 it was held that as s. 234D came on the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003, it did not have retrospective effect.
