In view of various decision of Supreme Court it cannot be accepted that Union of India has no authority or power to levy service tax on renting of immovable property. The imposition of service tax on renting of immovable property was within the legislative competence of the Parliament and it does not fall within the legislative competence of the State under entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The appellate authorities have taken the view, and do not appear unjustified in doing so, that with the basic facts having been divulged and established by the assessee with furnishing of necessary details, it was for the Assessing Officer to establish that the details were false or incorrect and the additions could not have been made merely on generalized observations or on suspicion. In an overall view of the matter, it is found that the finding of facts have been rendered by the appellate authorities on the relevant considerations after due examination of record and do not appear suffering from perversity.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. UOI (Rajasthan HC) – the income assessed by the Assessing Officer is almost 47 times of the income declared by the assessee viz. Rs. 1,44,42,320/- against the declared income of Rs.3,48,140/-. The disputed demand of tax also would be almost the same multiples of the declared and admitted tax liability or may be more because of interest and penalties.
Another caveat on legislative practices, particularly subordinate legislation and executive policy decisions and the decision making process, which is amenable to judicial review by courts is that, it is high time that subordinate legislations in the form of notifications issued by Executive should give the preamble, context, brief reasons and background and particularly defining their prospective a retrospective applications, should be adopted like statement of objects and reasons and memorandum explaining provisions are given with legislative Bills, so that the judicial review becomes an effective exercise and one liner amendments like the notification dated 28.04.2006 in the present case, which have far reaching consequences are not allowed to become missile attacks on the budding industries.
Bhilwara CTO challenges tax rate on aluminum conductors. Jodhpur High Court clarifies misreading, upholds 10% tax. Learn more about the case.
It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeches to quash and set-aside the order dated 10th August, 2010, whereby the Director of Income Tax (CIB) Rajasthan, Jaipur imposed a penalty of 20,200/- rupees on the petitioner.
Chapter XIX-A is a complete Code in itself as regards settlement of cases for having provided a complete mechanism other than procedure provided under the IT Act. Legislature conferred all powers upon Settlement Commission being vested in IT authority under the Act as provided U/s 245-F and what is being decided
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, partly allowing the cross objections of the assessee, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner. The remand has been made on the aspect of gross profit rate. However, the learned Commissioner, and the learned Tribunal, upheld the rejection of books of accounts,
