The assessment under the Central Excise law in the name of partnership firm will virtually, for all purposes, be assessment of the partners of such firm who will be jointly and severally liable for the duty liability that was incurred during the currency of their partnership venture of manufacturing excisable goods. The decisions of this Tribunal taking a contrary view are no longer good law and will stand overruled.
The interesting question raised in this petition is, where a company deducts tax at source (TDS) from the salary payable to an employee, but fails to deposit the said amount into the Government treasury, whether, the revenue can recover the TDS amount with interest from the employee concerned in spite of the express bar contained in section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the instant case, there was no evidence to show that money was loaned or kept deposited for a fixed period or repayable on demand. Further, the sister concerns and the assessee were owned by the same family group of people with a common managing partner with centralised accounts under the same roof
1.Whether deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amounts? The deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amount. 2.Whether Modvat Credit available to the assessee as on the last day of the previous year amounts to payment of Central Excise duty u/s. 43B?
Q.1. What is the definition of MSME? A.1. The Government of India has enacted the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 in terms of which the definition of micro, small and medium enterprises is as under:(a) Enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production, processing or preservation of goods as specified below: (i) A micro enterprise is an enterprise where investment in plant and machinery does not exceed Rs. 25 lakh;
The claim of the appellants for refund of Education Cess was based on the Notification bearing no. 56/2002, dated 14-11-2002, which provided for exemption to the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (other than the goods specified in Annexure I to the Notification), from so much of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the three Acts, namely, The Central Excise Act, 1944; The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; and The Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods, other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit.
The definition of advance ruling referred to above, makes it abundantly clear that it is concerned with determining a question of law or fact in relation to a service which is proposed to be provided by an applicant. The applicant admits in its affidavit that it has been providing investment research services since June, 2005 to the holding company (though claimed to be provided on a trial run basis) and is being paid for such services as per the agreement of December, 2005.
The tax paid by the company was part and parcel of the salary and not any sum outside the salary or independent of salary. Thus, the tax liability of the assessee was nothing but the salary and not anything outside it. Therefore, this payment of tax on behalf of the assessee will be monetary payment. In view thereof, the provision contained in section 10(10CC) is not applicable for the reason that like salary, this payment is also a monetary payment forming part of the salary.
JCIT Vs Mukund Limited (ITAT Mumbai) – The consideration of Rs.2.04 crores paid by the assessee company for obtaining the leasehold rights from MIDC in favour of the assessee for a period of 99 years is capital in nature and therefore, not allowable as deduction to the assessee.
Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions
