The impugned order confirms the demand against the appellant under the category Business Auxiliary Services without specifying which specific sub-clause covered the activities rendered by UTL. We find that no tax liability can be confirmed against a person without putting him/it on notice as to its liability. It is essential that the liability is indicated in the notice with reference to the specific statutory provision. In the instant case, the impugned proceedings did not allege at the show cause notice stage or find at the adjudication stage the specific provision under which the services rendered by UTL are classifiable.
In the event the assessee claims that he has not purchased the property, as revealed in the AIR, before the ld.AO, then, it would be proper for the ld.AO to obtain the Sale Deed from the Sub Registrar’s office to prove the revenue’s claim. Assessment order based only on the AIR report will not stand in the eye of law.
The Tribunal held that mere existence of subsidiary does not by itself constitute the subsidiary company a PE of the parent company. The main condition for constitution of PE is carrying on of business in India. However, no operations in respect of the manufacture and sale of parts and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits to subsidiary was carried out by the taxpayer in India.
Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited v. ACIT held that the discount given by the taxpayer at the time of sale of SIM Cards or Recharge coupons to the distributors is commission for the services rendered to the taxpayer. Accordingly, the taxpayer was liable to deduct tax at source on the commission under Section 194H of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The assessee let out property on a rent of Rs. 90,000 per month and also received interest-free security deposit of Rs. 8.58 crores. The property was not subject to the Rent Control Act. The assessee claimed that only the rent could be taken into account for determining the ‘annual value’ of the property and not the notional interest on the deposit. The AO determined the ‘annual value’ u/s 23(1)(a) by adding Rs. 30 lakhs of notional interest. The CIT (A) and Tribunal deleted the addition by holding that the rateable value as determined by the MCD had to be taken as the “fair rent” u/s 23(1) (a) and the notional interest could not be added either u/s 23(1)(a) or u/s 23(1)(b). On appeal by the department HELD:
M/s Frick India Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – There was a composite agreement titled as ‘intellectual property license and non compete agreement’ vide which several valuable rights including the right to use the trademark, technical know-how including right to export to 30 countries have been granted over a long period of ten years to the assessee, which gave rise to a benefit of enduring nature. However, the AO has allowed the same as revenue expenditure without application of mind and without keeping in view the stand taken in earlier years by the AO which was also confirmed by the CIT(A) on the very same facts.
Pearey Lal Bhawan Association Vs M/S Satya Developers Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Service Tax: whether the burden of service tax, levied on the service or facility of leasing (of the suit premises) should be borne by the lessor (i.e. the service provider) or the lessee (i.e. the defendant, user). – that unless a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, in case of the imposition or increase in the tax after the making of a contract, the party shall be entitled to be paid such tax or such increase. Although there is no explicit provision to that effect, enabling lessors such as the plaintiff, to the service tax component, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient internal indication in the Act, through Section 83 read with Section 12-A and Section 12-B suggesting that the levy is an indirect tax, which can be collected from the user (in this case, the lessee). This issue, is therefore, answered in the plaintiff’s favour, and against the defendant.
As per statutory provision under section 65(105) (zzn) of the Finance Act, 1994 taxable service means any service provided or to be provided – (zzn) to any person, by air craft operator, in relation to transport of goods by aircraft. The definition of the term aircraft appears in Section 65(3A) of the said Act Passenger aircraft is not excluded. The meaning of the goods is assigned from the term sale used in Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76, 77 or 78, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.” In other words, the assessee has to establish reasonable cause for the failure which could otherwise attract penalty under the said provisions of law. The letter dated 24th August, 2006 merely informs the Department that the appellants were not aware of the statutory provisions.
Royalty paid by a taxpayer computed even on sales made to the Associated Enterprise is at arm’s length. Further, a taxpayer paying royalty to its Associated Enterprise can make additional payments for technical services rendered by personnel deputed by the Associated Enterprise.
