his appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Cental Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) against the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure A-3) proposing to raise following substantial question of law
This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act , 1994 against order dated 22.3.2010 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi proposing following substantial question of law
In this tax appeal, Tribunal upholds Section 78 penalty, sets aside Section 76. Learn about the mutually exclusive nature and legal implications.
The Petitioner, owner of commercial immoveable property, has let out the said property to business entities on rental basis. The Petitioner has challenged the levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property covered under Section 65(90a) and Section (65)(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and its retrospective amendment under the category ‘Renting of immoveable property services’ as ultra-vires the legislative competence of the Parliament.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision dated 22 November 2010 on the issue of constitutional validity of the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property and the validity of the retrospective amendment to the definition of ‘renting of immovable property’ under Finance Act, 1994 ruled in favor of the Revenue.
: It cannot be held that renting of property did not involve any service as service could only be in relation to property and not by renting of property. Renting of property for commercial purposes is certainly a service and has value for the service receiver. Even if it is held that transaction of transfer of right in immovable property did not involve value addition, the provision cannot be held to be void in absence of encroachment on List II.(Para 22) It is well settled that competent legislature can always clarify or validate a law retrospectively. It cannot be held to be harsh or arbitrary. Object of validating law is to rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna and to effectuate and to carry out the object for which earlier law was enacted. (Para 23) we do not find any ground to set aside giving of retrospective effect to the amendment from
Commission paid to private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis could not be allowed as a business expenditure. The amount which can be allowed as business expenditure has to be legitimate and not unlawful and against public policy.
CIT Vs. Saranapal Singh (HUF) (Punjab & Haryana Court)- In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.
CIT Vs. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H) – On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.
The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as question involved in the present case is of lack of jurisdiction on admitted facts. In the present case, the petitioner furnished all the information and raised a dispute of taxability relying upon the judgment in Kone Elevators (India) Ltds case (supra). In such a situation there could be no question of attempt at tax evasion. Invocation of jurisdiction to impose penalty at the Information Collection Centre was not called for.
