Whether mere mentioning of actual assets of a newly constructed plot by a developer in valuation report, without disclosing same in return, consitutes sufficient reasons for Revenue to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment – YES: SC

THE issue before the Apex Court is – Whether the failure of a builder to disclose the exact size and actual assets of a plot before the commencement of new construction, in its return, consitutes sufficient reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, for purpose of invoking Explanation 2(c)(iv) of Section 147. YES IS THE ANSWER.   

Continue reading Whether mere mentioning of actual assets of a newly constructed plot by a developer in valuation report, without disclosing same in return, consitutes sufficient reasons for Revenue to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment – YES: SC

ITAT : Rejects Special-Bench constitution on foreign tested-party controversy; Cites HC-pendency in own case

Ahmedabad ITAT, in second round of proceedings, rejects Revenue’s contention for constitution of Special Bench (‘SB’) for deciding issue regarding selection of a non-resident entity as a tested party in the case of General Motors India (assessee) for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08, as same issue was pending before jurisdictional HC in assessee’s own Continue reading ITAT : Rejects Special-Bench constitution on foreign tested-party controversy; Cites HC-pendency in own case

Delhi withdraws digital signatures for Returns; CBEC amends conditions for EOUs / STPs availing excise exemption

Central Excise:

Pursuant to dispensation of bonded warehousing requirements for EOU / STP / EHTP Units, CBEC disallows such units engaged in trading from removing procured goods outside the ‘premises of the unit’ for job-work purposes, instead of ‘bonded premises’; Deletes the condition of ‘following rewareshousing procedure’ during supply or transfer of processed, manufactured, produced or packaged goods as well as capital goods to another unit in SEZ, STP, EHTP unit or EOU; In case of units engaged in processing of agricultural products, they would require to have premises for secure storage of goods procured duty free and final products manufactured / produced therefrom; Amends Notification No. 22/2003-CE

 

Invokes ‘promissory estoppel’; Absent public interest, premature Industrial Policy exemption withdrawal

Tripura HC sets aside Notification No. 11/2007-CE inasmuch as it sought to prematurely withdraw exemption benefits granted under North-Eastern Industrial Policy 1997 r/w Notification Nos. 69/2003-CE, 8/2004-CE & 28/2004-CE;  

challenged the withdrawal on ground that unit had been set up and operated for commercial production of jarda scented tobacco before Notification No. 11/2007-CE and such action of Govt. had an adverse effect since it had altered its position by investing a huge amount on clear and fundamental assurance given by the State; HC invokes doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Govt., states that representation / promise was unequivocal and as assessee was covered by Notification Nos. 69/2003-CE & 8/2004-CE conjointly, it was entitled to get such incentives in the form of exemption subject to compliance of conditions laid down therein, till expiry of promised period of 10 years; Assessee would continue to get benefits / incentives under erstwhile Policy of 1997 in view of saving clause as engrafted in new North-East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy 2007, observes HC while rejecting Revenue contention that no relief should be granted since Notification No. 69/2003-CE was superseded by Notification No. 8/2004-CE, observes that fundamental provisions made in former Notification have not been debased by subsequent Notification; Also rejects Revenue’s stand that assessee misused / took undue advantage of benefits in the absence of “proper investment”, says same cannot be ground to deny benefit, while observing that Revenue did not assign any public interest for such premature withdrawal  : Tripura HC Continue reading Invokes ‘promissory estoppel’; Absent public interest, premature Industrial Policy exemption withdrawal

HC : Seized imported gold jewellery construable as “prohibited goods”, provisional release not warranted

HC rejects assessee’s appeal for provisional release of confiscated gold jewellery alleged to be smuggled from Singapore; Rejects assessee’s contention that gold is not ‘prohibited goods’ and can be released pending adjudication proceedings, states that gold may not be one of the enumerated prohibited goods, but if the  Continue reading HC : Seized imported gold jewellery construable as “prohibited goods”, provisional release not warranted

SC : No retrospective SAD exemption on imports from Nepal; India’s trade protocol inapplicable

SC disallows exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) on import of various dental hygiene products from Nepal during the period March 1, 2000 to September 29, 2000 in terms of Notification No. 124/2000-Cus, which amended Notification No. 37/96-Cus; Notes that Notification No. 37/96-Cus provided     Continue reading SC : No retrospective SAD exemption on imports from Nepal; India’s trade protocol inapplicable

Maharashtra relaxes ‘proof of stay’ condition for arrears settlement; Prescribes e-application procedure

Maharashtra Govt. relaxes the condition of submitting proof of stay from Tribunal, HC or SC in order to avail the benefits under the Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears in Dispute Act, 2016; Also directs Appellate Authority to consider credit of amount paid prior to passing of assessment order u/s 23(5) of MVAT Act for   Continue reading Maharashtra relaxes ‘proof of stay’ condition for arrears settlement; Prescribes e-application procedure

Whether when writ petitioners were not aware of CBDT notification, limitation on that account shall not remain suspended nor can period during which appellant was ignorant about change of jurisdiction can be excluded from period granted for filing appeal – YES: HC

THE issue is – Whether when the writ petitioners were not aware of the CBDT notification, limitation on that account shall not remain suspended nor can the period during which the writ appellant was ignorant about the change of jurisdiction can be excluded from the period granted for filing appeal. YES is the answer.  

Continue reading Whether when writ petitioners were not aware of CBDT notification, limitation on that account shall not remain suspended nor can period during which appellant was ignorant about change of jurisdiction can be excluded from period granted for filing appeal – YES: HC

Maharashtra Sales Tax Dept. prescribes stand-by arrangement for issuing e-CST declarations post April 2016

Maharashtra Sales Tax Dept. prescribes stand-by arrangement for issuance of e-CST declarations for periods on or after April 1, 2016, in light of on-going implementation of SAP based new Automation System; Lays down separate procedures for ‘old dealers’ i.e. dealers whose previous year’s returns are available on Mahavikas, and for ‘new dealers’; States that Nodal Officer can override defects in e-CST module upon comparison with similar type of declarations issued in previous financial year (for old dealers) and with prior approval of immediate Supervisory authority; Clarifies that there is neither any change in previous instructions regarding all other verification parameters, nor would the dealer’s application in State of Requirement (SOR) for period after April 1, 2016 shall be put on hold / rejected only on ground that return(s) for period after said date is / are not filed, and that summary of turnover of inter-state purchases for the period covered under SOR shall be obtained through e-mail; Where dealer has not paid taxes after April 1, 2016, Nodal Officer shall obtain reason(s) for the same from dealer through email, and the compliance received from dealer shall be submitted to Supervisory Authority while taking approval : MVAT Internal Circular

 

ITAT : Equipment AMC services rendered outside India not FTS, NR-payments not taxable

Delhi ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeal for AY 2004-05, payment to an Israel based company by assessee (an Indian company) under annual maintenance contract (‘AMC’) not taxable in India,  TDS u/s 195 not applicable; Observes that payment towards AMC was in the nature of routine repairs/ replacement and maintenance and not in the nature of FTS absent managerial, technical or consultancy services being provided to assessee; Rejects Revenue’s submission that services under AMC were rendered in India as equipment was in India and services were rendered through communication in India, further since the delivery of repaired / replacement unit was at CIF Mumbai, amount was taxable in India; Referring to AMC contract for warranty granted on equipment supplied to assessee, ITAT notes that equipments were sent outside India for any repair/ replacement and were re-imported in India, therefore holds that ” it is not correct to say that the entire services were rendered in India.”; Moreover, ITAT holds that in absence of non-resident’s PE in India, amount cannot be brought to tax as business income in India:ITAT