There is also force in the submissions of the counsel for the assessee that prior to introduction of S. 56(2)(vii) by the Finance Act, 2009, w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2009, gifts in kind were outside the purview of s. 56(2)(v) or (vi).
In the instant case, the service rendered is promotion/marketing of the goods of the client in India by rendering various services such as demonstration, installation, after sales warranty and advertising services for which the appellant received a consideration. These activities are rendered in India and their effective use and enjoyment are in India and therefore, the benefit of the services rendered also accrue in India and hence leviable to service tax.
The petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi was charged with offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 192 deals with the deduction of tax at source. It is computed on the estimated income of the assessee under the head ‘salary’ and the liability is at the time of payment of salary, if there is a perquisite, there is responsibility to deduct tax of the employer under section 192(1), 192(1A) and 192(1B). Perquisite is actually not a payment of salary but a benefit not in terms of money.
ACES has started accepting Service Tax (ST-3) returns for the period April to June 2012 revising the earlier forms by removing few bugs. The extended time to file now is till 25th Nov for Apr to Jun 12 ST Returns. Returns for July to September 2012 is still undergoing some structural changes.
Section 271(1)(c) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalties wherever the assessee does not furnish accurate particulars, in the form of returns, such as concealing the sources of income, or withholding true and full information. This duty was spelt out by the Supreme Court as one cast on the assessee to disclose all facts, including every potential income.
As for the excess area constructed, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), it is for the BBMP to look into the violations if any in the construction of the housing project. That however does not authorize the Assessing Officer to hold that the assessee has not got approval for the housing project OR that the conditions laid down in section 80IB (10) stated violated.
What is to be seen in the instant case, is whether the claim for deduction of depreciation u/s 32 of the Act, made by the assessee was bona-fide and whether all the material facts relevant thereto have been furnished and once it is so established, the assessee cannot be held liable for concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
As explained by assessee, the income could not be offered as assessee sought approval under section 10(23G) as early as of 24-8-2005 which was followed with reminder letter addressed to the CCIT on 17-1-2006. Since the application was made in form No. 56E, it is natural that the Board will either accept or reject the application in a reasonable period of time. As on 1-11-2006 assessee has not been communicated by the result of the application, even though it was following it up.
In order to determine whether the payment is not sustainable, the Assessing Officer has to first return a finding that the payment made is excessive under section 40A (2). If it is found to be so, then the Assessing Officer has to determine what constitutes the fair market value of the services rendered and disallow the difference between what is claimed and what is such value determined (as fair market value).
