Appeal by revenue against the order of Tribunal setting aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not have the requisite mens rea to evade payment of service tax
While Explanation 2 to s. 147 deems income to have escaped assessment if excessive deduction is allowed, the reopening of an assessment u/s 147 has serious ramifications because the AO is empowered to reassess income even in respect of issues not set out in the notice. Therefore, if the power to rectify an order u/s 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in the order of assessment, the AO must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment. If the error can be rectified u/s 154, it would be arbitrary for the AO to reopen the entire assessment u/s 147. Further, the error in the order was not attributable to a fault or omission on the part of the assessee and the assessee cannot be penalized for a fault of the AO;
In a setback to foreign carrier companies, the Bombay high court has ruled that delayed payment of foreign travel tax (FTT) could attract penalty under the provision of the Finance Act, 1979. Rejecting the plea of petitioners Malaysian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North West Airlines and Kenya Airlines
The party if it feels that such recording of statement of fact is wrongly recorded it is incumbent on its part to approach the said judge promptly and without any delay or before the same feeds the memory and to invite the attention of the said judge that there is an error.
When the disclosure is made subsequently to the seizure of incriminating material, the disclosure is made because of adverse consequences and such disclosure is not voluntary. On the facts of the case, the disclosure was made pursuant to search and seizure of incriminating material which includes the diary. The issue whether the authorities could have deciphered the documents on their own without petitioner co-operating, is immaterial.
The AO passed an assessment order in which he declined to follow the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement “is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment”. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in Pee Vee Textiles is not stayed,
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on collection of Service Tax levied on buildings under construction, following a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (MCHI). Mr Sunil Mantri, President, MCHI, said the chamber had urged the High Court to restrain the respondents (Union Government and others) from taking steps against the members of the Chamber in respect of transactions for construction,
Construction of a complex intended for sale by the builder before, during or after construction is deemed to be a service provided by the builder to the buyer;No service tax is leviable if entire payment for the property is paid by the buyer after completion of the construction including certification by the local authorities;
In this context we notice that the decision of the Supreme Court in TARA AGENCIES’ case abovereferred was on assessee’s entitlement for weighted deduction on export market development allowance provided under Section 35B(1A) of the Act which is no longer in the statute. In our view, the scheme of deduction of export market developmen
section 80HHC, Deduction under Section 80HHC, Bombay High Court, export turnover,deduction under section 80HHC
