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.
Whether the Cenvat credit can be denied on the ground that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed on invoice? The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein input credit taken by them on duty paid invoice was denied only on the basis that the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed.A show-cause notice was issued and demands were confirmed by both the lower authorities. Aggrieved from the said orders, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT-Mumbai.
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.
The assessee had wrongly taken the benefit of Section 80IA on the gross total income by reducing the loss of Unit-II from Unit-I and thereby declaring the return at Nil and carried forward the loss of Rs. 23,94,827/-, which was not permissible.
Given the fact that the Settlement Commission order was made on 11.6.2002 and as on the date of insertion to Explanation 1(iv) with effect from 1.6.2002 the applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessees’ contention that the Explanation should not be given retrospective effect.
CIT(A) followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in part and not in toto. He was of the view that interest and salary to the partners be allowed but not interest to third parties and the depreciation was to be allowed as claimed in the original return because the claim made in the revised return could not be substantiated. However, he has brought nothing on record as to how and in what manner the claim in the revised return was not substantiated particularly when the then learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 30th March, 2007 accepted the filing of revised return and the said order on the issue of acceptance of revised return
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.
Coming to the cenvat credit proposed to be denied on the ground that services were used for both exempted and non exempted goods as per the denial of proportionate credit as per the OIA, it has to be noted that admittedly the first appellant was engaged in the manufacture of animal feed which is exempted and was also engaged in trading activity. That being the position, the first appellant was obliged by law to maintain separate records failing which reverse the credit relatable to the trading activity.
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.
