The question is as to whether interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act can be charged for default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of advance tax, respectively, where the payment of tax became due only because of the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 1(h) to s. 115JB (2) of the Act, the amendment having been made operative retrospectively. It was due to the filing of the revised statement of assessable income,
Engagement for professional service or services simplicter which do not involve contract for carrying out any work itself, or a contract for labour for carrying out such services, is not within the purview of section 194C as it exists.
Assessee entered into a collaboration agreement with ‘D’ for purchase of land on its behalf and development thereof by ‘D’. ‘D’ purchased land from farmers on behalf of the assessee through its agent ‘J’. In lieu of the consideration paid by ‘D’ for purchase of land, its account was credited by way of journal entries. ‘J’ had made payments in cash to the farmers in order to effect purchases.
The impugned circular issued by the Board came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court and it has struck down the circular holding that powers under section 119 would not empower the Board to issue clarification which would take away the exemption which has been granted by the statute. There was no reason to take a different view particularly when the decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the SLP came to be dismissed
ombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. 178 Taxman 135 Bombay held that in such situations the presumption would be that interest free funds were used for the purpose of giving interest free advances.
As we are witnessing the major changes in the Service Tax Rules/Acts recently. Under Reverse Charge Mechanism the service recipient is liable to pay the service tax instead of service provider. However in certain cases both service provider and service recipient has been made liable to pay service tax. The service receiver has to register himself under service tax and service receiver cannot claim general exemption limit of 10 Lakh rupees.
Now coming to the issue in question about the head of taxability, the provisions of Section 28(va) have been narrated above. Except from raising general argument about colourable device, lower authorities have not disputed the arguments of the assessee about applicability of Section 28(va),
Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses by taking a stand that the financial year is over. Such action of the opposite parties as rightly apprehended by the petitioner would lead to unnecessary complication and unavoidable and inappropriate proceedings. Had the certificate been given in time as was done in the previous year there would not have been any necessity for making any deduction of tax by some of the principals from the payments made to the petitioner and the ultimate consequence, because of Departmental inaction, the Assessee-petitioner has to again go through the process of seeking refund in its assessment.
It is now well settled that in determining whether a receipt is liable to be taxed, the taxing authorities cannot ignore the legal character of the transaction which is the source of the receipt. The taxing authorities are bound to determine the true legal character of the transaction.
Issue is whether such a notification given on 22nd May 2009, thorugh which MCX Stock Exchange has been recognized, can be held to be applicable for the transaction undertaken in the assessment year 2007-08 i.e., after 1st April 2006. From the combined reading of clause (d) of proviso to section 43(5), Rule 6DDA, 6DDB and Explanation (ii) to section 43(5), it would be seen that the rules which has been prescribed are only procedural in nature,
