TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.(Now Known as TATA Motors Ltd.)[the Appellant or the Company] is a manufacturer of Motor Vehicles and also engaged in the business of hire finance of Motor Vehicles.
Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 234E seeks to levy a fee of Rs.200/- per day (subject to certain other conditions as set out therein) inter alia on a person who deducts Tax at Source (TDS) and then fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements to the authorities within the prescribed period.
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
The Tribunal should pass a fresh order not only in relation to the objection raised by the Assessee to the exercise of powers under section 263 of the IT Act, but on the merits of the claim as well. Merely because such an opportunity is given by us does not mean that the Tribunal is obliged
Bombay High Court was annoyed for filing appeal in a matter covered by a binding precedent of the Apex Court. The Court sought an explanation from the counsel for the Income Tax Department why appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by him when there was an authoritative
We are afraid that if the Revenue persists with such stand and as has been turned down repeatedly, that would defeat the very object and purpose of the schemes and packages devised by the States. That would also result in frustrating the entrepreneurs and defeating the purpose
We do not find how Officers lower down in the hierarchy can take decisions to file Appeals and that too against the decision of the Tribunal. The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court.
Issue- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A)’s order and rejecting the departmental appeal in accepting the Assessee’s plea that the contribution of Rs.39,68,000/- paid towards ‘heavy repair fund’ is covered by the principle of mutuality and is not chargeable to tax.
We have heard both sides at great length and with their assistance, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has noted the basic facts and about which there is no dispute.
It was claimed by the Petitioner P. C. Joshi who is an advocate by profession that section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act 2009 and substituted by Finance Act 2011, proceeds to levy Service Tax on the Advocates.
