Section 44AB of the Act becomes operative where there is computation of profits and gains of business or profession as a part of total income. In other words, it has no applicability where the assessee is not involved in or has no income from profits and gains from business or profession.
Whether Charitable Trusts (CT) are liable to pay ST? Yes. Refer to charging section i.e. Section 66B which reads as follow: 66B. There shall be levied a tax …. provided ….. by one person to another……. Does it mean that CT will have to pay ST on services provided by it? Yes. Section 66D containing Negative List (NL) is not having any specific reference to services provided by CT. Hence, services provided by CT are taxable.
In the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. v. CCE&C [2011] 32 STT 262/12 taxmann.com 307 (SC), the Apex Court has confirmed the view taken by the High Court wherein it was held that a transaction of selling of SIM card to the subscriber is also a part of the ‘service’ rendered by the service provider to the subscriber. The contention of the assessee that the amount paid as sales tax be considered as sufficient compliance of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, read with section 83 of the Finance Act could not be accepted. As the Tribunal has no power to adjust such payments as the same is created under the special Act, i.e., Customs Act, Finance Act and Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has no power to adjust the payment of sales tax against service tax. As discussed above, the assessee had failed to make out a case for 100 per cent waiver of pre-deposit.
It is not necessary that all the services provided by the GoI should be tax exempt. The point is that one should be extra cautious while reading statutory provisions and more particularly the ST. An attempt has been made in this analysis to show how various prepositions viz. ‘to’, ‘by’ etc. plays an important role with respect to ST payable for services provided ‘by’ and ‘to’ the GoI.
There was no fresh tangible material before the Assessing Officer to reach a reasonable belief that the income liable to tax has escaped assessment. The order passed originally on 29th March 2005 under Section 143(3) of the said Act was passed after the respondent had made adhoc claim for expenditure at 30% of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002-03 itself records that the the claim of 30% adhoc expenses was withdrawn when the respondent assessee was asked to substantiate the claim.
Claim for deduction under Section 80IB cannot be denied in this year based on the findings given by the Assessing Officer or by the virtue of surrender of claim before the Assessing Officer. It is a duty casts upon the Assessing Officer or to the appellate court to see that if a deduction or a claim for exemption is statutory allowable, then the same has to be allowed, if the assessee fulfils the prescribed conditions required under the statute.
In the instant case, the property in question is residential house, which has not been let out or used for the purpose other than residential. Therefore, even though the assessee did not stay in the house so long, this house is exclusively for residential purpose. Therefore, the conditions as enumerated in the third proviso to rule 3 are satisfied.
What is ST-3 Return? It is a self assessed statutory document notified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which functions under the Ministry of Finance for the service providers to enable them to declare the value of taxable services provided or received by them and the taxes paid by them for the same.
ACIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani Assessee sold his residential house on consideration of sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- on 03.11.2007 and has spent a sum of Rs. 30,44,695/- on purchase of plot and on construction of a residential house thereon. The construction of this residential house was completed in the month of March, 2008. Since the construction was completed within three years of transfer of capital asset, the ratio as laid down in the case of Subramaniya Bhat (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case as it has been clearly held in that case that for claiming deduction u/s 54, the construction of the house should be completed within the prescribed time limit and date of commencement of construction is not material for claiming deduction.
In the instant case, the admitted facts were that the objects of the assessee society were for welfare of resident of the colony and other maintenance services of the colony. Section 12AA requires that the Commissioner(Appeals) is to satisfy himself about the objects of the society and genuineness of the activities. Whether the object of the society was charitable or not was to be examined. Section 2(15) provides the definition of charitable purposes.
