While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The learned Tribunal was of the view that Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act is applicable only to expenditure payable as on 31st March of every year and cannot be invoked to disallow the amount which had already been paid during the previous year, without deducting tax at sources.
The assessee sold the property at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/- For the purpose of stamp duty, however, the value was estimated at a sum of Rs.5, 19,77,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty was realized. During the assessment, it was found that the assessee had disclosed the sale price
The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under s. 271(1)((c) started. The Revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him.
Thus obviously, it is only on account of deeming provisions of section 50C, the AO has made the addition by adopting the sale consideration of Rs.5, 19,77,000/-, being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp valuation. The revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which is in excess of the amount of Rs.2,51,50,000/-.
Whether or not a secured creditor, which has initiated action for enforcement of its security interest in terms of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
The assessee has made payment for commission and has been rendered services in consideration of the same. As a matter of fact, it is not even revenue’s case that no services have been rendered at all.
We already have delivered a judgment on 3rd April, 2013 in ITAT No. 20 of 2013, G.A. No. 190 of 2013 (CIT, Kolkata-XI Vs. Crescent Export Syndicates) holding that the views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports (ITA.477/Viz./2008 dated 20.3.2012) were not acceptable.
The key words used in Section 40(a)(ia), according to us, are on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII –B. If the question is which expenses are sought to be disallowed? The answer is bound to be “those expenses on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII –B.
we are of the considered opinion that the designs and drawings which were imported and assessed as ‘goods’, cannot be subjected to Service tax, hence, no Service tax is chargeable on that part of the contract relating to Contract No. CRMP/CON/SPM/03 dated 16-7-1998 attributing towards the value of designs and drawings.
