Respondent assessee was interalia engaged in the business of execution of contracts for erection and commissioning of plants. The Assessing officer disallowed an amount of Rs.16.86 lacs paid by way of reimbursement to sister concerns for payment of salaries to their employees as they were deputed to the respondent assessee. This was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for failure to deduct tax. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing officer.
Whether Services in relation to erection, commissioning and installation of storage tank for storage of imported inputs/ammonia outside factory are eligible as input services?
It is an admitted position that no notice under Section 143(2) had been issued while making assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal has discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But in a case where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.
We do not find substance in the submission of the Respondent-Revenue that there is no requirement to offer a personal hearing as the same was not asked for by the Petitioner. This court in the matter of Sahara Hospitality (supra) has held that it is mandatory wherever it is possible to do so on the part of the Revenue to grant a personal hearing before passing an order under Section 127(2) of the Act. Thus merely because the Petitioner had not specifically asked for a personal hearing it will not absolve the revenue of its obligation to ordinarily grant such a hearing.
Input services used in manufacture of exempted intermediate product is eligible for credit, if such intermediate product is used in manufacture of dutiable final product In the present case, ONGC is a manufacturer both of dutiable and exempted products. Crude oil as well as natural gases are exempted products. The Tribunal has held against the Appellant in regard to its entitlement to avail of input service on the ground that crude oil at Mumbai Offshore is in itself a saleable commodity since it is transferred or sold in part to other purchasers at Mumbai Offshore.
The recovery of the demand on these three heads has to be stayed in view of a strong prima facie case being made out. The balance due and payable by the assessee would work out to Rs.159.49 crores. The assessee has under cover of its letter dated 28 March 2013 paid an amount of Rs.100 crores under protest.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for appellant revenue contends that the amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs being the difference between Rs. 80.00 lacs shown in the seized document and Rs. 71.35 lacs shown in the document evidencing to purchase of Candy House property represents unexplained cash paid by the respondent for purchase of the Candy House and has to be added as her undisclosed income. It is his submission that it was for the respondent to discharge the onus on her to explain the noting found during the search of the premises which indicated Rs. 80.00 lacs as the value of the Candy House property. In view of the failure of the respondent to discharge the burden an amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs has to be added as undisclosed income of the respondent Mr. Subhash Shetty learned counsel for the respondent supports the order.
Tribunal by the impugned order followed its order in the matter of WNS North America Inc rendered on 25th November, 2011. The Tribunal while upholding the order of the CIT(A) held that the amount of Rs. 2.93 Crores was received by the Respondent-Assessee as reimbursement of lease line charges and would not classify either as royalty or as income attributed to a Permanent Establishment in India.
Insofar as question (b) is concerned, it becomes academic as if the eight comparables selected by the TPO are found not to be functionally comparable then the difference between the operating margin of the respondent at 15.05% as against the 18.97% of comparable companies being within the range of +/ – 5% the amounts received by the respondent – assessee is within the statutory limits. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain question (b).
On 27 July, 2009, Notification No.24/2009-Service Tax, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance issued a Notification under section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 exempting the Notification No.24/2009-Service Tax taxable service referred to in section 65(105)(zzg) provided to any person by any other person in relation to management, maintenance or repair of roads, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon. The earlier Notification was amended on 21 January, 2010 to expand the scope of the exemption to cover, inter alia, the management, maintenance or repair of roads, bridges, tunnels, dams, airports, railways and transport terminals.
