Amounts in the accounts maintained by the assessee are deposits of the customers and/or not under the control of the assessee, and therefore, provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the bank.
The Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251/[2008] 174 Taxman 113 detailed in no uncertain terms that the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be of no relevance. What is to be seen is that the assessee was indulging in R&D activity and had incurred the expenditure thereupon. Once a certificate by DSIR is issued, that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee fulfils the conditions laid down in section 35(2AB).
In view of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in various cases the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006, i.e., the date of enactment of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F No. 275/7/2010- CX8A, dated 30.6.2010 stands rescinded.
The assessee, while filing her initial return of income, disclosed her income to be Rs. 1.34 lakhs in the relevant assessment year and the said return finds mention of receiving gift of Rs. 2.50 lakhs from ‘A’. In the revised return the said amount of gift was declared as part of her income. Thus, there was no concealment in respect of above amount in filing the return. She further surrendered a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs as additional income which was also received by her as gift from one ‘U’. In this manner her taxable income was computed to be Rs. 6.34 lakhs by adding the aforesaid two amounts of Rs. 2.50 lakhs each as finally disclosed.
Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents! material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is seemed to be incorrect and wrong. In view of these facts we are of the considered view that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of deeming provision.
Tata International Ltd vs. DCIT – It is an undisputed fact that the reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer were not furnished to the assessee till 14.06.20012 despite repeated requests and demands and therefore, the gist of reasons as furnished vide letter dated 28th June 2007 cannot be treated as reasons actually recorded by the Assessing Officer as per section 148 (2) and as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment within the reasonable time and rather prior to the completion of assessment, than the reassessment order passed without supply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment, is invalid and cannot sustain.
Tender Notice For Advertisement For Consultancy Cell For Empanelment Of Valuers / Stock Auditors / Technical / Financial Consultants For State Bank Of India, Kolkata . LHO, BANGALORE Invites Offers For Empanellment of Valuers/Stock Auditors In State Bank Of India For Bangalore Circle.
The assessee had reflected the service tax liability on account of service provided by him during the period April, 2007 to September, 2007 in the ST-3 returns filed with the department. The reason for delay in making payment had been sufficiently explained by the assessee in his reply, stating that due to sudden crash in the stock market, the main broker of whom he was the sub-broker, defaulted in making the payment. This had resulted in non-payment of service tax liability in time. The reason is bona fide in non-payment of service tax in time.
From the date the Finance Bill 2012 was introduced on March 17, 2012 until date, there have been numerous amendments made in the service tax law. Several notifications have been issued over the last three months and many of them have already been superseded by a fresh set of notifications issued on June 20, 2012. In all 40 Notifications have been issued under service tax over the last three months.
Advocates were resisting being brought within the ambit of Service Tax by their argument that their basic function is to assist the Court in effective justice delivery system and while doing so they function more like officers of the Court than as service provides. They were assisting the litigants in obtaining justice and that charging of fees was just ancillary to the main object. However, appreciating the popular sense they have agreed to be so covered by the Finance Act 2012, albeit in a restricted manner.
