Katrina kaif held not liable to pay service tax as its paid by her agent0 comments Sunday, December 30, 2012
Mumbai CESTAT in Katrina Kaif's (famous actress) case has held that once the service tax is paid by agent the assessee herself need not to pay service tax again. Since definition of assessee includes agent, where service tax liability of assessee-actress had been discharged by her agent, service tax could not be demanded from assessee-actress.
This judgement implies that service tax liability can also be discharged by agent of assessee and in which case assessee need not to pay service tax. Similarly service tax liability can also be shifted by agreement on to the service provider in cases where reverse charge is applicable. Main thing is that revenue should get its due taxes irrespective of the fact who is paying it or on whom it has been shifted by agreement between the service provider and service receiver Deduction u/s 54EC for investment made from earnest money before sale of asset whether allowable0 comments
Bombay High Court in the Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2, Pune has held that allowing deduction of investment made u/s 54EC from the earnest money/advance of the sale consideration of the Capital asset sold, was a possible view in view of CBDT's circular 359 dated 10-05-1983, which was taken by AO during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), hence reopening on the ground that investment should have been made after the sale of the capital asset is a mere change of opinion which is not allowed.
Although this judgement is on the point of reassessment, it also brings attention towards circular No. 359 dated 10-05-1983 of CBDT wherein it was directed that deduction for investment u/s 54E(existing at the relevent time) was available even if such investment was made before the date when capital asset was sold and such investment was made out of the earnest money/advance received as being part of net sale consideration.
Sale of used cars not to be included in gross turnover, if not incidental or ancillary to business0 comments
Delhi High Court in Panacea Biotech Ltd. vs Commissioner of Trade
and Taxes has held that in pharmaceutical business sale of used car cannot be
treated as incidental or ancillary to the business and hence the sale of same
cannot be included in the gross turnover.
Entry tax deferment quarterly statement amended-certain technical flaws exist0 comments Thursday, December 27, 2012
General
circular No. N-1-2011 / spl. 31 - 60 dated
: 17.5.2011on Entry Tax deferment issued by Excise & Taxation department,
Punjab in pursuance of orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court has been amended.
The
circular has changed the format of quarterly statement of deferment claimed
from entry tax to be filed by the persons claiming deferment from the entry
tax.
Due date for efiling of VAT-20 extended0 comments Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Investment limit of 50 Lakh u/s 54EC applicable to finanical year and not to transaction0 comments Saturday, December 22, 2012
ITAT Bangalore has held in Shri Vivek Jairazbhoy Vs.Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax that limit of investment of Rs. 50 Lakh u/s 54EC of Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable to a financial year and not to transaction that means if period of 6 months of investment u;/s 54EC spreads to two financial years then investment of more than Rs. 50 Lakh can be made in two such financial years in respect of same transaction.
Circular on taxability of set top boxes under Delhi VAT0 comments Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Commissioner, VAT, Department of Trade and Taxes, Delhi has issued a circular clarifying the taxability of set top boxes under Delhi VAT Act, 2004. It has been mentioned that set top boxes are being supplied by cable operators on lease basis against refundable securities. The circular suggest that such leasing is a deemed sale of goods as transfer of right to use goods. Concealing a receipt in return attracts penalty even if due taxes are deposited0 comments Saturday, December 15, 2012
FACTS:
The assessee's services were terminated by the foreign company with which he was employed.
The company Offered him continued employment for a limited tenure, on same terms and remuneration as before.The employer-company paid him an extraordinary compensation of VSD 10 lacs for retention and seaverance of his services.
Penalties under PVAT Act can be adjusted against Excess ITC0 comments Friday, December 14, 2012
Section 15 of PVAT Act 2005 deals with the Net Tax Payable by a taxable person. Sub section 1 of Section 15 provides that the output tax under PVAT Act shall be adjusted from the Input Tax Credit for determining Net Tax Payable by a taxable Person. If any excess ITC is still left then it is to be adjusted from the CST liability under CST Act 1956 at the option of the taxable person as per section 15(2) of PVAT Act.
Section 15(3) of PVAT Act provides that the Excess ITC if any left after adjustment of output tax or CST liability u/s 15(1) and 15(2) then such ITC shall be adjusted against any outstanding tax, Penalty or Interest under PVAT Act 2005 or CST Act 1956 as the case may be.
Public notice under PVAT regarding efiling of returns for third quarter of year 2012-130 comments Thursday, December 13, 2012
GOVT OF PUNJAB
EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC NOTICE
ATTENTION: DEALERS/ ADVOCATES/ CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
E-FILING OF QUARTERLY RETURNS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER (Q3)
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS0 comments Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Facts: The assessee was engaged in trading of agricultural products. During the course of assessment proceedings, from the tax audit report in Form No. 3CD the Assessing Officer noted that the tax auditor had quantified the amount of Rs. 40,41,233 disallowable under section 40(a)(ia). However, in computation of income the assessee had added back only Rs. 20,16,778. The remaining amount of Rs. 20,24,455 was therefore, disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed expenditure on which tax had been deducted and should have disallowed the expenditure on which no tax had been deducted. Alternatively, it was argued that proportionate disallowance of Rs. 15,75,239 should have been made.
Reimbursement of expenses not liable to service tax-Rule 5(1) is ultra vires0 comments
Delhi High Court
has in a very important case namely Intercontinental Consultants and
Technocrats Pvt Ltd Vs UOI held that reimbursement of expenses cannot be
charged to service tax by treating the same as part of service charges. Rule
5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of value) Rules has been held as ultra vires
to the extent it brings the reimbursement of expenses within the ambit of
service tax
No TDS u/s 194C on transportation if the same is incidental to contract of sale0 comments Sunday, December 2, 2012
Gujrat High Court has held in CIT vs Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd that TDS u/s 194C will not be applicable on transportation of goods if such transportation is incidental to contract of sale.
In this case where assessee entered into a contract with GAIL for supply of gas to its
consumption points through pipelines and in addition to price of gas
it had agreed to make separate payments for transportation of gas, it was held that
contract was a contract for purchase of gas and not a work contract
Signature mismatch on cheque may lead to criminal proceedings-SC0 comments
A person may face criminal proceedings if a cheque issued by him
gets dishonoured on the ground that his signature does not match the
specimen signature available with the bank, the Supreme Court has said. A bench of justices T S Thakur and Gyan Sudha Mishra set aside the verdict of Gujarat High Court which had held that criminal proceedings for dishonouring of cheque can be initiated only when the cheque is dishonoured because of lack of sufficient amount in the bank account and not in case where a cheque is returned due to mismatch of signature of account holder. Starting date of Efiling of VAT-20 postponed to 5th december0 comments Saturday, December 1, 2012
PUBLIC NOTICE
EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB ATTN: ALL DEALERS, ADVOCATES AND CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS This is to inform all concerned that the e-Filing service for VAT 20 would now be available from 5th December 2012, instead of 1st December 2012 as communicated earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Featured PostTCS to apply only on cash portion of sales transaction CBDT clarifiesWelcome clarification by CBDT on TCS on Cash Sale. CBDT vide Circular No. 23/2016 dt. 24 June 2016 has clarified on FAQs of stakeholde... 
AddThisShareThisGet updates via email, just subscribe below and click on activation link afterwards in your emailCategory
Right consultancy at right time avoids unnecessary litigation.
Popular Posts
FollowersAbout Me
FeedjitBlog Archive
WARNING
Nobody is permitted to copy or publish the articles existing on this blog on any website or on any other media without my express permission. Total PageviewsDisclaimer
No one is responsible for any claims if somebody finds that the information/opinions provided in this blog is incorrect and the blog is meant only to share knowledge and exchange views in a meaningful manner.
Useful Links
Powered by Blogger.
|
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
|
