Orion Appliances Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the „appellant?) was engaged in providing maintenance and repair and commissioning and installation services. The appellant was also engaged in trading activities. The appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various input services including advertising, security, courier, telephone and banking services which were used in provision of taxable output services as well as for trading activities.
The Hon?ble CESTAT, Delhi held in case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara (‘Daelim’) (2003-TIOL1 10-CESTAT-DEL) that a works contract cannot be vivisected and a part of it cannot be subjected to service tax. In the case of CCE, Raipur Vs M/s BSBK Pvt. Ltd (2009 (13) STR 26) it was observed by the Hon?ble CESTAT, Delhi that the conclusion in the Daelim case, prima facie, is not in accordance with the law.
Till AY 1996-97 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against income under any head. From AY 1997-98 to 2001-2002 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off only against business income. From AY 2002-2003 onwards unabsorbed depreciation could again be set off against income under any head of income.
The assessee has taken on lease a theatre complex consisting of five cinema theatres from M/s Satyam Sayi Corporation (P) Ltd,. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has incurred substantial amounts towards consultation charges, interior design, modernization, changing of floor tiles, false ceiling, landscaping, chairs, earth filling etc. According to the learned departmental representative, these expenditures were incurred by the assessee for obta
The learned departmental representative submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer disallowed Rs.8,55,58,000/- towards expenditure claimed as reimbursable. According to learned departmental representative the assessing officer also disallowed a sum of Rs.16,69,069/- under the Article 12 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Govt. of India and USA. Referring to the agreement between the assessee and National Highway Authority of India , the learned departmental representative pointed out that the agreement has two parts. The first part contains General Clauses and the second part contains Special Clauses. In the agreement, there was no difference between reimbu
ACIT v. Louis Berger International Inc. (ITAT Hyderabad) – Referring to article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Government of India and USA, the learned counsel submitted that any amount other than the amount received as consideration for services rendered cannot form part of fee for technical service. Therefore, the reimbursable expenditure cannot constitute fee paid/payable for the services rendered by the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that the reimbursable expenditure by the Government or its department cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
In Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87 (Mum)(SB)(AT) the Special Bench held that for purposes of s. 80HHC only the “profit” on sale of DEPB entitlements (i.e. the sale value less the face value) was required to be considered. In an appeal by the department, this judgement has been reversed by the Bombay High Court today, 29th June 2010.
The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed.
The Bombay high court last week ruled that a labour dispute can be referred to the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of an unrecognised workers’ union. In this dispute between Bharat Forge Ltd and Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, the recognised union had 800 workers at the Pune plant.
