Tribunal has exercised the powers under Section 80 of the Act and therefore setting aside the penalty under Section 76 by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held to be unreasonable. Further, the respondent has admittedly paid 25% of the penalty within one month from the date of the order of the original authority. Therefore, the waiver of penalty in excess of 25% of the Service Tax evaded under Section 78 is also justified and, therefore, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference.
Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ludhiana(High Court of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh) – Whether ITAT is justified in law in allowing deduction u/s 80IB on labour job receipts ignoring the fact that such income is not ‘derived from’ the eligible business of industrial undertaking of the assessee company? – Whether ITAT is justified in law in allowing deduction u/s 80IB on other miscellaneous income being misc. receipts, rebate & discount and balances written off etc. whereas such income is not ‘derived from’ the eligible business of industrial undertaking of the assessee company?
The Assessee borrowed money from a sister concern at 18 per cent interest and purchased shares from another sister concern carrying a dividend at 4 per cent. The Revenue thought the device was colourable and disallowed the interest. Investment in sha
Section 76 provides for penalty for failure to pay the amount while Section 78 provides for penalty for suppressing the taxable value. Section 78 is, thus, more comprehensive and provides for higher amount. Even if technically, the scope of sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been imposed under Section 78; the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under section 78 of the Act.
Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.
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.
