Explore Chennai Water Board Tax Case with TDS on loss-making payee, interest levy, and proportionality issues under the Income Tax Act.
Method of Accounting regularly followed by the taxpayer which was accepted by the Tax Officer in past cannot be rejected in future years without expressing the dissatisfaction about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the taxpayer Rec
The present writ petitions are disposed of holding that the respondents are not entitled to levy service tax on the petitioners upto 17.4.2006, in respect of the services availed by them, as it is clear that Section 66A had been inserted in the Finance Act, 1994, by way of an amendment, by the Finance Act, 2006, only with effect from 18.4.2006, enabling the authorities concerned to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service.
Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to issue a show cause notice and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the issues arising for his consideration relating to the payment of service tax by the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to substantiate its claims, by producing the necessary records. Thereafter, the respondent may pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the decisions of the supreme Court cited by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
The object of the transaction namely the loan transaction is towards the purchase of the capital asset as against the running of the regular business such a receipt would be a capital receipt. Therefore, by applying the said principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court there is no doubt that the grant of loan being one for the purpose of purchase of capital asset which was also utilised for the same is only a capital receipt.
In the absence of link or connection between the gift made by the devotees and the profession or avocation carried on by the assessee, a religions head, the personal gift cannot be termed as income taxable under the Act
In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year; such a recording is absolutely mandatory as per the provision and as laid down in various judgments
The appellant/revenue has filed the above Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Chennai, dated 27.04.2007 in ITA.No.1862/Mds/2004. 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 09.03.2010, this Court admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law:
In a recent decision, Honourable Madras High Court has upheld the legislative competence of levy of service tax on software services by the central government
The judgment of the Supreme Court is an expression of opinion on the interpretation of statute. Merely because a judgment has been rendered, the same cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment u/s 147 as it amounts to a change of opinion. Austin Engineering 312 ITR 70 (Guj) followed).
