Section 65(39a) was amended by substituting vide Section 88 of the Finance Act, 2005, which is reproduced below. (39a)’erection, commissioning or installation’ means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency, in relation to:- (i) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery or equipment; or (ii) installation of– (a) electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings therefore; or (b) plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids; or
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 16/6/2011 delivered by Hon’ble High Court,Madras in the W.P.No. 21520,21782 and 21783/2010 filed in the matter of BSNL Vs. Union of India & others. The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of RPFC that PF contributions need to be deducted for training period of Junior Telecom Officers/Junior Accounts Officers and other similarly placed employees.
Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
Madras High Court has stayed the Registration of Lawyers For Service Tax. The Court has passed an order of interim injunction dated 24.06.2011 restraining the Ministry of Finance from compelling the members of the Petitioner from registering themselves with the service tax authorities and collecting service-tax from them until further orders in response to writ petition filed by The Revenue Bar Association, Madras.
Kumudam Printers Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Madras high Court)- Whether capital gain arising out of the sale of land and building is liable to be included for computation of book profits under Section 115J – Whether when there is no failure on part of the appellant to disclose any material fact at the time of the original assessment and hence, the reopening of the assessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148 issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is liable to be annulled. – Assessee `s appeal allowed.
Ramalingam Charities Vs CIT, Salem (Madras High Court) – Tribunal considered the claim of the revenue as well as the assessee and pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Trust deed was not existing solely for the educational purposes and that the trust had engaged itself in other activities by running orphanages, Kalyana mandapam, money lending business, etc., it cannot be held that the Trust was one solely carrying on the activities of educational institutions. The Tribunal further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11(5) of the Act and had diverted the funds to its sister concern, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Honourable HC also held that since the assessee has not satisfied the requirement under Section 11(5) to claim benefit under Section 12 of the Act so not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 for amount received as corpus fund.
M/s Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Madras High Court) – As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the taxable amount has escaped assessment, two conditions were required to be satisfied on the basis of the materials placed before him. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of the first condition alone is suffice. In other words if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that certain income assessable to tax has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. Hence, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
Commissioner of Income tax v. Emerald Jewel Industry (P) Ltd.( Madras High Court)- Assessee Company is eligible for deduction under Sec. 80-IA in respect of windmill installed by it and the unabsorbed depreciation set off in earlier years could not be reduced from profits for computing deduction u/s. 80-IA.
Madras High Court has recently held in the case of CIT v R. Rajgopal [TS-222-HC-2011 (MAD)] that, as the salary was paid directly by the Indian subsidiary company, conditions of Article 16(2)(b) of the Indo-UK Treaty was not fulfilled. Accordingly, the taxpayer was not entitled to claim short stay exemption under Article 16(2) of the India-UK Treaty.
KASTURI & SONS LTD, CHENNAI Versus UNION OF INDIA & others (Madras High Court)- Dated: 24-02-2011 – Service Tax – Based on the impugned circular of the second respondent, the third respondent is insisting for payment of service tax on maintenance charges payable to the company in Denmark and therefore, the impugned circular is challenged on various grounds including that the same is ultra vires section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that when the section itself takes away the maintenance of software from the purview of service tax, the second respondent cannot by virtue of such circular impose service tax, that it is ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution of India, since it seeks to impose service tax through a circular which is not permissible in law and therefore, it affect Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.
