While September is the month for filing Income Tax returns by business entities, in Service Tax, it is October of the year which keeps all services providers busy in filing their Service Tax returns for first six months ,i.e. April to September. The last date is 25th October of the year after which penalty is attracted which may go upto Rs. 20,000.
One for transfer of business goodwill and the other for collection, delivery and handling of fly ash on which service tax liability is being discharged. By no stretch imagination, payment of goodwill on transfer of business can come under the category of business auxiliary services; therefore, we do not find any merit in the Revenue’s appeal.
Even in a case where the share broker was found involved in unfair trade practice and was involved in lowering and rising of the share price, and any person, who himself is not involved in that type of transaction, if purchased the share from that broker innocently and bonafidely and if he show his bonafidein transaction by showing relevant material, facts and circumstances and documents,
DIT (E) was not justified in forming an opinion that the objects of the assessee are for a specific community being violative of the provisions of s. 13(1)(b) of the Act. As a matter of fact, the assessee has been serving the public irrespective of caste, creed and religion by imparting education and, thus, it is entitled to registration u/s 12AA of the Act.
In the present case, we find that not only is there a change of opinion but also the re-opening is barred by limitation inasmuch as the condition that the escapement of income must have resulted from the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts, has not been satisfied. The impugned order dated 27.10.2010 merely glosses over the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation.
Our conclusion is based on the fact that the assessee has not established that the termination of the distributorship agreement has resulted in a loss of source of income or has affected its trading contract. This was not even the assessee’s case before the authorities before whom it was contended that the receipt was in the nature of a gift or akin to a gift.
The limited dispute raised is regarding transfer pricing adjustment in relation to international transactions entered into by the assessee with associate enterprises. There is no dispute either regarding TNMM method followed by the AO or about variables selected for computation of transfer pricing adjustment.
All the agreements, invoices and related documents produced before us lead to the fact that the payments have been made only for supply of manpower for certain amount of hours and nothing more. Since there is no technology, skill, experience, technical plan, design, etc. had been made available either by the assessee or the ACSC as held by the Cit (A), invoking the provisions of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA for treating the payments as chargeable to tax in India, is not justified.
A short question which arises for determination in this appeal is, whether the Department is entitled to charge interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee bringing forward the tax credit balance into the year of account relevant to Assessment Year 2001-2002?
The mistake on the part of the assessee is that the assessee invested a part amount of sale consideration/ capital gain in residential house instead of gross sale consideration and claimed deduction under section 54F. It is relevant to note that for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act investment of capital gain is the requirement whereas for claiming dedication under section 54F investment of sale consideration is the condition. From the facts of the case it is a clear cut case of bona fide calculation mistake.
