Sec. 10(23A): CBDT notifies 'Indian National Group of International Association'
Notification No.4/2015 , Dated-20-1-2015
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23A) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby approves the "Indian National Group of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, IDA Building, Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011″ for the purpose of the said clause for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16 subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(i) the assessee shall apply its income, or accumulate the income for application, in accordance with the provisions of the said clause (23A), solely to the objects for which it is established;
(ii) the assessee shall not be eligible for exemption under the said clause (23A) in respect of income chargeable under the head "Income from House Property" or any income received for rendering any specified services or income by way of interest or dividends derived from its investment.
[F.NO. 196/36/2013-ITA.I]
What stand customer can take if Bank demand Form 15CA but service is not taxable? In such cases, the possible recourse is to submit a declaration in form of a note to Bank stating the nature of remittance and reason as to why it is not chargeable to tax and consequently exempted from the submission of Form 15CA
Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Chapter VII of The Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 covers the concept of declaration of beneficial interest in any shares (Including Preference Shares)
PFA
PFA
Section 129 of the Companies Act, 2013 lays down that the financial statements shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Company or Companies comply with the Accounting Standards and the format of those financial statements shall be as per Schedule III of CA, 2013.
PFAService Tax on Renting of Immovable property paid with interest – Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 waived as issue was in dispute and has still not attained finality Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-III [2015-TIOL-178-CESTAT-MUM] Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod (the Appellant) rented out their premises to M/s […
Issue of Service Tax on Renting of Immovable property still not attained finality – Penalty Waived
Service Tax on Renting of Immovable property paid with interest – Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 waived as issue was in dispute and has still not attained finality
Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-III [2015-TIOL-178-CESTAT-MUM]
Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod (the Appellant) rented out their premises to M/s Loot India Pvt. Ltd. Renting of immovable property was brought under the Service tax net under erstwhile Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) w.e.f. June 1, 2007. The levy was challenged by M/s Retailers Association of India and the matter travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated October 14, 2011 stayed the operation of levy (only in respect of Service tax liability from June 1, 2007 to September 30, 2011) subject to certain conditions, such as payment of specified portion of the Service tax to be in installments. In the present case, the Appellant paid the Service tax on December 12, 2012 with interest and also filed the Service tax returns.
However, the Appellant was asked to deposit penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai.
The Appellant relying upon the decisions in The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Commissioner or Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III [2014-TIOL-1242-CESTAT-AHMD] and Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Motor World [2012-TIOL-418-HC-KAR-ST],submitted that since the issue was in dispute upto the level of Supreme Court and the matter has not attained finality, there is reasonable cause for invoking Section 80
of the Finance Act and waiving the penalty under Section 76 thereof. It was further submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Vinayaka Securities and Detective Agency Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2014-TIOL-1242-HC-KAR-ST](Vinayaka Securities), the Appellant are entitled to waiver of penalty under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (the VCES) introduced in 2013.
On the other hand the Department argued that in the matter of Renting of Immovable property, penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act could be waived under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act subject to the condition that the amount of Service tax along with interest is paid in full within a period of six months on which the Finance Bill, 2012 was passed i.e. before November 26, 2012. Inasmuch as since the tax has been paid only on December 12, 2012 the benefit is not available to the Appellant.
The Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai after observing provisions of Section 80(2) of the Finance Act and Circular No. 174/9/2013-ST dated November 25, 2013 (the VCES Circular) issued in respect of the VCES, held as under:
- It is evident from the VCES Circular, that normally the VCES is not applicable when the tax had already been paid before its introduction but at the same time, the Government has left a window open for taking a lenient view in the issue of penalties in some circumstances under Section 80 of the Finance Act;
- Since, in the instant case, the matter was pending in Courts and has still not attained finality, the Appellant deserves a lenient view following the judgment in the case of Vinayaka Securities.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the Appellant and waived the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act
Madura Coats (P.) Ltd.Vs. Union of India [(2015) 53 taxmann.com 152 (Karnataka)] During the period from September 10, 2004 to December 31, 2004, Madura Coats (P) Ltd. (the Petitioner) received certain services from abroad and paid Service tax thereon under reverse charge on January 25, 2005 on insistence of the Department.
Where Stay application against the Order sanctioning refund claim has been rejected, there is no reason for Revenue to stop refund
Madura Coats (P.) Ltd.Vs. Union of India [(2015) 53 taxmann.com 152 (Karnataka)]
During the period from September 10, 2004 to December 31, 2004, Madura Coats (P) Ltd. (the Petitioner) received certain services from abroad and paid Service tax thereon under reverse charge on January 25, 2005 on insistence of the Department.
Since the services received from abroad were not chargeable to Service tax under reverse charge prior to introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act), the Petitioner applied for refund claim on September 26, 2005. The said refund claim was allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Order dated June 17, 2009 which became final and binding.
Later, the Petitioner, armed with the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, made yet another representation for refund of Rs. 15,16,992/-, whereupon the Department by letter dated August 27, 2009, directed the Petitioner to file a refund claim in Form R supported by documents. The Petitioner, by letter dated September 4, 2009, once again requested for the refund supported by documents. The Department by Order dated October 15, 2009, sanctioned the refund and credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the premise of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), which was allowed by Order dated December 28, 2011.
Thereafter, the Petitioner made several representations requesting for refund but the same were not responded by the Department. Nevertheless, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT together with a Stay application. The Stay application was dismissed by Order dated September 10, 2012 but no refund was sanctioned to the Petitioner by the Department. It was argued by the Department that in the light of pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, the Petitioner must await the decision. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Department to effect payment of refund.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that there was no reason for the Department not to effect refund. The question as to unjust enrichment is before the Tribunal and all arguments in that regard would be considered by the Tribunal. In the absence of any stay, the Department was directed to refund the amount to the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and not at 6% per annum as prescribed by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it is not a case of mere delay in refund.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment