The first issue before us is whether the assessee is a developer and builder and, thus, entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB(10) qua the Sadguru Krupa Project, or only a Contractor and, thus, not so entitled. No argument, much less materials, has been advanced or adduced before us
Last proviso to section 54F clearly mentions that when amounts deposited under Capital Gains Account Scheme were not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction within the period specified, then such amount would be charged as income of the previous year in which the period of three years, starting from the date of the transfer of the asset expired.
Consideration charged for the service provided shall include income tax deducted at source as per terms of contract and is in accord with Section 66A read with Rule 7(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 for the reason that net price of contract agreed to be paid to foreign consultant was to include income deducted at source thereon to be price also. Thus the tax demand on the assessable value comprising the consideration inclusive of income tax deducted at source relating to the period (9.4.2006 to September 2007) which was agreed to be price of the contract sustains.
It cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, , Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose.
In the instant case of the assessee, the legal position is clear in as much as not having made the application under section 197 r.w.s. 195 of the Act to the Assessing Officer for lower or no deduction of tax, he was statutorily duty bound to have deducted tax at the specified rate on the ‘sum’ i.e. the sale consideration, before making payment to the seller who was an NRI.
In the instant case, the amendment under Section 260A (2A) has been introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.1998 by the Finance Act, 2010. But fact remains that the cases already settled before the said amendment cannot be re-opened, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Babu Ram v. C. C. Jacob and others; AIR (1999) SC 1845, where it was observed that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
1. Point of taxation under reverse charge mechanism is date of payment to the service provider provided payment must happen within 6 months from the date of invoice otherwise point of taxation will be date of invoice. Invoice needs to be issued by the service provider within 30 days of completion of each event/service. If invoice is not issued within the specified time, point of taxation will be the date of completion of provision of service.
In other words, though the assessee had paid tax of Rs.50.00 lakhs, since the assesses was entitled to reimbursement of Rs.35.00 lakhs from the Company, the salary income (Rs.77.00 lakhs) received by the assesses had to be enhanced by Rs.35.00 lakhs only and not the balance Rs.15.00 lakhs which is paid by the assesses from the salary income. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tax amounting to Rs.15.00 lakhs paid by the assessee from the salary income (not reimbursed by the company) could not be added to that income of the assessee. Accordingly the first question cannot be entertained.
Section 269UA(f) does not operate differently merely because the licencee under different agreements is the same. It is always open to a licensor and a licencee to enter into different agreements for different periods. There is nothing in the above provisions that warrants the periods under the various agreements being clubbed.
Unfortunately, this court has failed to engage the respondents’ attention on such aspect of the matter despite several reminders in course of the hearing. Instead, the respondents have veered off course to emphasise on single-line orders of adjournment to impress that the settlement had never been worked out. But the settlement or the adequacy of the consideration for the transfer of shares is not germane to the issue.
