The assessee contended that the expenditure under the said claims are only for promotion of sales and hence had no relation to payment of any commission on sales. The assessee contended that therefore tax at source is not required to be deducted as the said expenditure did not fell within the ambit of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
Deposits or advances given to the parties which was written-off latter in the scheme of amalgamation, were neither a capital assets nor there was any transfer, thus no capital loss is allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent year. Thus held that irrecoverable advances written-off are not a transfer and the loss cannot be claimed as capital loss.
Bombay HC dismisses writ filed by Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association and upholds validity of service tax levy on air-conditioned restaurants serving liquor u/s 65(105)(zzzzv) of Finance Act.
Hon’ble Bombay HC has recently held in the case of Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Vs. CIT that In the event, the Counsel engaged by the Department is absent without a justifiable or reasonable cause, we will invariably impose costs and to be paid by the Counsel personally.
The applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The applicant had in fact never filed any service tax returns and as such knowingly utilized the Government monies for his personal use.
Authorities under the Act are obliged to dispose of proceedings before them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction
Impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in total disregard of the principles laid down in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R.Balakrishnan and others {(2001)251-ITR-158 (Bom)} wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down the following parameters to be observed by the Authorities while considering the stay application :
The impugned communications dated 22 January 2014 and 23 January 2014 issued by Respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax insisting that the Petitioner should pay the amounts adjudicated upon by order dated 27 December 2013 is contrary to the provisions
Contention of the Assessee :- The action of the petitioner revenue in not only attaching the petitioner’s bank account but also withdrawing the amount of Rs.159.84 crores on 18 November 2013 when the stay application was already fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 22 November 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) so also the learned Tribunal upon perusal of the agreement in question found that the possession as contemplated in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was in fact not handed over by the assessee to the developer.
