The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that impugned Govt. Circular dt.11-11-1996 (which gave powers to the Registrar to appoint statutory auditors for urban credit/employees co-op. credit societies) is not applicable to the non-aided cooperative societies of any category. As a result of this Judgment, henceforth the non-aided employees staff credit/ urban credit societies can appoint auditors of their choice in their AGM/SGM etc.
Income Tax – Section 10(33), 14A, Rule 8D – Whether disallowance of expenses incurred to earn an exempt income under section 14A, in effect from April 2007, could be applied to assessee for assessment year 2006-07 without an established nexus between exempt income and expenses – Assessee’s appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT In CIT vs. Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) it was held that disallowance u/s 14A required finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A could not stand. On the other hand, in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co 328 ITR 81 (Bom) it was held that the AO could adopt a reasonable basis to identify the expenses in relation to the earning of exempt income; Rule 8D does not apply to AY 2006-07. The assessee has urged that no expenditure has been identified to have been incurred to exempt income. Neither the AO nor the CIT (A) has rebutted this submission. The AO has made an adhoc estimate which is not sustainable in the light of Hero Cycles. Accordingly, in view of Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 where it was held that if two constructions are possible, one favouring the assessee should be adopted, the precedent laid down in Hero Cycles should be followed. Referred: M/s Vegetable Products Ltd. 088 ITR 0192 (SC) , that in the taxing provision if two constructions are possible, one favouring assessee should be adopted. Followed: CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 0518 (P&H) and Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd vs Dy. CIT (2010) 004 TaxCorp (DT) 46941 (BOMBAY)
On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute is as to whether service tax liability arises on recipient of commission who resides outside India and has no office in India, for the period prior to 18.4.2006. The Apex Court has held that such liability arises only with effect from 18.4.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944. The ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. India
The Petitioner, owner of commercial immoveable property, has let out the said property to business entities on rental basis. The Petitioner has challenged the levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property covered under Section 65(90a) and Section (65)(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and its retrospective amendment under the category ‘Renting of immoveable property services’ as ultra-vires the legislative competence of the Parliament.
The appellant is an association of leasing and financial companies. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the levy of Service Tax imposed on the financial leasing services covered under ‘Banking and other financial services’ as ultra vires the legislative competence of the Parliament. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant filed civil appeal in the Supreme Court.
M/s Coromandel Paints Ltd („the appellant?) are manufacturers of paints & varnishes, thinners falling under chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 („the Central Excise Tariff?). The appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sigmakalon India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (SIPL) for manufacture and supply of paints. The paints manufactured by the appellant for SIPL were meant for industrial and institutional use, hence, in accordance with the provision of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, no MRP was required to be printed on such packages. Accordingly, the valuation of the same is not required to be done under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 („the Central Excise Act?). Therefore, the appellant sold the said goods to SIPL by paying Central Excise duty on the transaction value i.e. on the landing cost of the raw materials and the production overheads. Further, the invoice amounts were adjusted against the advances paid by SIPL. The Department demanded duty from the appellant on the ground, that the goods were being manufactured by the appellant on job work basis and the same were required to be assessed in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 („the Valuation Rules?). The demand was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT?).
‘Rent-a-cab’ services utilized by the appellants for transportation of food articles from centralized canteen to appellant’s current factory premises needs to be gone into in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. On a specific query from the bench, the authorized representative submits that the amount involved is approximately Rs.8,000/-.
Supreme Court directs that since, foundational facts could not be established by way of writ petition, the taxpayer should be relegated to adopt proceedings before various Income-tax authorities. Thus, the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to continue with the reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supreme Court in the context of Transfer Pricing Provisions of Section 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), has directed Assessing Officer (AO)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings and to decide independently on the merits of case, uninfluenced by the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (High Court). The Apex Court has further ruled if the taxpayer is aggrieved by the order passed by AO/ TPO, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act.
Where the details in the charts relied upon in the show-cause notice have been culled out from the trade and order logs and, in the circumstances of the case, it was not only relevant but even necessary that the appellant be furnished with those trade and order logs so that she could possibly make out a case based on other orders punched into the system, non-furnishing of the trade and order logs to the appellant in the circumstances of this case resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice
Had there been no minimum penalty prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 38, it would have been open for the adjudicating authority to consider the conduct of the defaulter and the extent of delay taking into account the extenuating circumstances while imposing penalty. But once the statute prescribes the minimum penalty without giving any discretion in favour of the adjudicating authority, then one has to go by the provisions of the Act
