In a recent decision, Honourable Madras High Court has upheld the legislative competence of levy of service tax on software services by the central government
In a significant case relating to Customs Valuation, a recent judgement dated 26.07.2010 of the Honorable Supreme Court has confirmed the duty demand against a leading importer of Whiskeys, M/s Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (earlier known as Seagram India Private Limited). The case pertains to imports between 1994 and 2001 involving duty evasion of about Rs 40 Crores. M/s Seagram would thus have to deposit this entire amount now. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition finalization of provisional assessments on imports of the goods by M/s Seagram from 2001 is likely to result in significant revenue to the government.
Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263.
Where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
Penalty under section 271(1)(c)-Concealment-Disallowance of expenses due to delay in payment of TDS-The disallowance of expenditure does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Under section 9(1)(vi)-Income from supply of software to clients in India-Where assessee was engaged in sale of copyright software then income from such sale cannot be treated as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) particularly where assessee did not have any PE in India.
Under section 2(1)(v) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (‘HGST Act’), ‘sale’ included supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
In our view decision in the case of Green Emirate Shipping & Travels (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As held in the aforesaid easel expression liable to tax’ in that contracting state as used in Article 4(l)of Indo-UAE-DTAA does not necessarily imply that the person should actually be liable to tax in that contracting state land that it is enough if other contracting state has right to tax such person, whether or not such a right is exercised
In our considered view, the AO was within his realm to invoke the provisions of s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the premise that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source while making the interest payments. The assessee’s stand that the payees have approached the AOs concerned for issuance of No TDS/lower TDS etc., authorization which they have failed to obtain etc., doesn’t hold water. Further contention of the assessee that TDS obligation was not was required, considering the computation of income shown in each case where F No.13 application was made to the AO concerned for authorization, in our considered view, to put it gently, the assessee had over-stepped in his perception which he was not obliged to do so under any provisions of I.T.Act.
