With effect from 1 July, 2012, there are certain services on which 100% service tax needs to be paid by Service Recipient and there is partial reverse charge wherein both service provider and service recipient needs to pay service tax as per defined percentage as mentioned in the table below:-
What a week it has been – first the Government infused a bitter pill on the citizens of the country by two non-populist steps in increasing diesel rates by five rupees a litre and substantially enhancing the prices of cooking gas over six cylinders in a year (three for the current year). This was followed by yet another bold decision of allowing foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail and aviation, which is being opposed by most political parties, besides ruling congress’s own allies and members.
A reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee wherever it is possible to do so. The opportunity referred to is a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There is no other opportunity referred to in the section. The observation in paragraph 3 that the opportunity cannot be said to be obligatory, refers to those cases where it is not possible to give such an opportunity to the assessee.
Thus, in the case before us, in the absence of existence of “any tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from assessment, the Assessing Officer exceeded his authority to reopen the assessment merely on the basis of a “change of opinion” and accordingly, it is a fit case of quashing the notice.
Assessee, submitted that though auction was held of parking lots, but no contract was executed in terms of auction and the contractors did not sign any contract and continued to charge parking charges. Therefore, the provisions of section 206C(1C) would not apply to the case and further for applicability of these provisions, the contract should also be registered.
From the facts of the present case, it is clear that there is no link with expenditure for earning of dividend income incurred by the assessee and once the facts are clear, no disallowance can be made by invoking rule 8D of the Rules. Neither the AO nor CIT(A) has recorded any finding that having regard to the account of the assessee, they are not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by assessee or the claim made by assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which do not form part of the total income under the Act for the relevant assessment year. In the absence of any such finding, facts of the present case shows that the investment in shares was made out of own capital employed and not from borrowed funds, no disallowance on account of interest expenditure can be made by invoking rule 8D of the Rules.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the activities of the assessee, viz., mining granite from quarries and exporting them after cutting, polishing, etc. which tantamount to manufacture for the purpose of Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Ld.Counsel for the assessee Mr.Sandeep Sadra on the other hand pointed out that the assessee has made a fresh claim before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and as all the facts are on record and as the Assessing Officer has himself recorded that the claim is correct, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was right in allowing the claim.
Accrual (or otherwise) of an income (or expenditure) is matter of fact, to be decided separately for each case, on the basis of the assessment of the obtaining facts and circumstances. The same cannot be stated as an accounting policy – which by its very nature is to be applied uniformly,
Apex Court held that till the amendment in 1995, the compensation received on surrendering the tenancy rights could not be assessed to capital gains. Thus, on the fact position as found by the Tribunal and which form the very basis of the order under Section 263 that the assessee was treated as tenants as per the document dated 25.02.1994, the genuineness of which was never questioned by the Revenue, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we reject the questions raised by the Revenue.
