Service tax provisions in respect to Works Contracts have undergone major changes after introduction of new service tax regime. Works contract in itself is a very lengthy subject and law relating to Works Contract in Service Tax is available in a very scattered way. I am trying to summarize all the legal provisions relating to Works Contract in this new service tax regime in a series of articles. This article is the first one in the series.
The burden is on the assessees to show that the amount received by purported gift(s) from the two donors was a gift in the legal sense. Assessees have not led evidence to show whether the alleged donors had adequate funds in their respective accounts to make these purported gift(s) in Singapore Dollars, which is almost running into more than five lakhs.
Arrears of rent received by the assessee (as mesne profits) could not be brought to tax for the previous years, when they fell due. They could be brought to tax only during the year of receipt. The revenue had further argued that during the year of receipt, the assessee had shown the amount so received as capital.
It is seen from the statement of ‘M’ that the assessee’s name was not mentioned by him at all as beneficiary of the accommodation entry business carried by him. Since despite being obliquely prompted, he did not mention the assessee’s name and merely stated that he did not deal with any ship-breaker and he had given only loan after taking cash and deducting commission.
The Tribunal has not rested its decision on the only circumstance that it is the business of the assessee to collect deposits and, therefore, it was entitled to collect them in cash even if it involves violation of Section 269SS; that is not the substratum of the decision.
On going through the impugned Order of the High Court, we find that no reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the re-opening of assessment. In the circumstances, the impugned Order of the High Court dated 23rd December, 2011, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2011, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
In our view, therefore, once the conditions of further proviso of section 194C(3) are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. The requirement of such payee to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable under sub-section (2) of section 1 94C of the Act.
It is evident from the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to produce confirmations and reconciliations at the time of assessment proceedings and since the details was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A), called for the remand report.
Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. Credit for reducing carbon emission or greenhouse effect can be transferred to another party in need of reduction of carbon emission. It does not increase profit in any manner and does not need any expenses. It is a nature of entitlement to reduce carbon emission, however, there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get this entitlement. Carbon credit is not in the nature of profit or in the nature of income.
