Last proviso to section 54F clearly mentions that when amounts deposited under Capital Gains Account Scheme were not utilised wholly or partly for the purchase or construction within the period specified, then such amount would be charged as income of the previous year in which the period of three years, starting from the date of the transfer of the asset expired.
Consideration charged for the service provided shall include income tax deducted at source as per terms of contract and is in accord with Section 66A read with Rule 7(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 for the reason that net price of contract agreed to be paid to foreign consultant was to include income deducted at source thereon to be price also. Thus the tax demand on the assessable value comprising the consideration inclusive of income tax deducted at source relating to the period (9.4.2006 to September 2007) which was agreed to be price of the contract sustains.
It cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, , Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose.
In the instant case of the assessee, the legal position is clear in as much as not having made the application under section 197 r.w.s. 195 of the Act to the Assessing Officer for lower or no deduction of tax, he was statutorily duty bound to have deducted tax at the specified rate on the ‘sum’ i.e. the sale consideration, before making payment to the seller who was an NRI.
In the instant case, the amendment under Section 260A (2A) has been introduced retrospectively w.e.f. 01.10.1998 by the Finance Act, 2010. But fact remains that the cases already settled before the said amendment cannot be re-opened, as per the ratio laid down in the case of Babu Ram v. C. C. Jacob and others; AIR (1999) SC 1845, where it was observed that the prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
From the Board’s Circular dated 19/01/2010, it is abundantly clear that refund of Cenvat credit can be allowed irrespective of when the credit was taken in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services. From the facts narrated in the order dated 13/01/2012, wherein the refund claim has been partly allowed, it is evident that the appellant was continuously undertaking exports during the said period and there were no domestic clearances. Therefore, in terms of the Board circular and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., (supra), the appellant is eligible for the refund of the entire amount of service tax credit paid by them on the input service irrespective of when the credit was taken.
The issue under consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the appellant are liable to be taxed as ‘Parts of Television Receivers’ falling under Tariff Entry 8529 of the Central Excise Tariff contained in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Tariff’) or as ‘Television Receivers’ under Tariff Entry 8528 of the Tariff, for the year 1989-90.
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rent free accommodation provided by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to the Assessee, an employee of Suzuki Motors Corporation (Japan) is not a perquisite in the hands of the Assessee under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the answer to this is in the negative whether the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Section 10(14) of the Act?
In other words, though the assessee had paid tax of Rs.50.00 lakhs, since the assesses was entitled to reimbursement of Rs.35.00 lakhs from the Company, the salary income (Rs.77.00 lakhs) received by the assesses had to be enhanced by Rs.35.00 lakhs only and not the balance Rs.15.00 lakhs which is paid by the assesses from the salary income. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the tax amounting to Rs.15.00 lakhs paid by the assessee from the salary income (not reimbursed by the company) could not be added to that income of the assessee. Accordingly the first question cannot be entertained.
Section 269UA(f) does not operate differently merely because the licencee under different agreements is the same. It is always open to a licensor and a licencee to enter into different agreements for different periods. There is nothing in the above provisions that warrants the periods under the various agreements being clubbed.
