Punjab VAT Department launched special drive for surveying unregistered persons liable to be registered

0 comments Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab has launched a special drive for finding out the unregistered dealers by way of survey u/s 48 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, who are eligible for registration under Punjab VAT Act but may not have registered as yet.

All the AETCs incharge of all the districts have been instructed to conduct systematic survey u/s 48 read with section 60 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 to find out such unregistered persons.

The copy of Public notice is being produced herebelow:
Read On

Transfer of Right to use goods-deemed sale or a service

7 comments Sunday, April 15, 2012

Transfer of Right to use goods for cash, deferred payment or valuable consideration is considered as deemed sales under sub-clause (d) of Article 366(29A) of Constitution of India and also consequently under Punjab VAT Act and CST Act liable to VAT and CST respectively.

 Right to use of tangible goods service has also been brought under service tax net by the Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f 16-05-2008 vide notification No. 18/2008-ST, dated 10-05-2008.whereby taxable service has been defined u/s 65(105)(zzzzj) of Finance Act, 1994  to mean as

“any services provided or to be provided, to any person, by any other person in relation to supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, without transferring right of possession and effective control of such machinery, equipment and appliances”.
Read On

Section 40(a)(ia) applicable to expenses payable at the end of year and not to expenses paid during the year

0 comments Thursday, April 12, 2012

Vishakhapatnam Tribunal has held in the following case that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) due to non deduction of TDS is applicable to the expenses payable only and not to the expenses already paid in the previous year.

The object behind section 40(a)(ia) which I understand is to disallow those expenses which are expanded without deduction of requisite TDS, however the Tribunal has interpreted the word “payable” in section 40(a)(ia) strictly and consequently has held that said section doesnot apply to the expenses already paid. 
Read On

Limit u/s 54EC can exceed Rs. 50 lakh if investment spreads over two financial years-ITAT Ahmedabad

0 comments Thursday, April 5, 2012
ITAT Ahmedabad has held in the follwing case that exemption u/s 54EC although is limited to Rs. 50 Lakh in one financial year but such exemptiuon can exceed Rs. 50 lakh if inbvestment is spread over two financial years. It has also been held that if the delay in investment of bonds is due to the fact that bonds were not available then such delay can be condoned and exemption will be allowed.

It is notable here that  recently Jaipur ITAT  in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Ajmer v. Shri Raj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) [2012] 19 taxmann.com 27 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that as per section 54EC investment within 6 months is investment for that particular financial year in which transfer has taken place and said period of six months would not include some part of subsequent financial year. 
Read On

Applying correct rate of depericiation is not a fresh claim, can be allowed by ractification letter

0 comments Sunday, April 1, 2012

Chennai ITAT has held in an following case namely ITO vs. Sri Balalji Sago and Starch Products that rate of depericiation if wrongly applied in the return of income and assessment proceedings the same can be ractified by filing letter for ractification of mistake, since applying incorrect rate of depericiation is an error apperant on record and there is no need to file revised return for it.

It is further held that judgement of Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 to the effect that no fresh claim can be made except by filing revised return is not appliocable to the facts of this case as the assessee while asking for applying correct rate of depericiation, is not making any fresh claim so as to file revise return.
Read On

Individuals and HUFs having foreign assets cannot file Sehaj and Sugam forms, efiling for income exceeding 10 lakhs also made mandatory

Rule 12 of Income Tax Rules have been amended so as to provide that a resident individual and HUFs having any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; or a signing authority in any account located outside India shall not be be eligible to file return of income in ITR-1(Sehaj form) and ITR-4 (Sugam Form).

Efiling of returns from A.Y. 2012-13 by  individuals and HUFs having income exceeding Rs. 10 lakh and the individuals and HUFs having any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; or a signing authority in any account located outside India and required to furnish the return in Form ITR-2 or ITR-3 or ITR-4, has also been made mandatory.
Read On

Order passed against payer under section 195, read with section 201(1)/(1A), would be invalid, if no action against payee is taken and time limit u/s 148 also expired

Mumbai ITAT has held in a case namely Crompton Creaves Ltd. vs DCIT that Where revenue had not taken any action against payees for non-deduction of tax at source and time-limit for taking action against them under section 148 had also expired, order passed against payer under section 195, read with section 201(1)/(1A), would be invalid.
Read On