CORPORATE AND PROFESSIONAL UPDATE DATED MARCH 17,2016

CORPORATE AND PROFESSIONAL UPDATE DATED MARCH 17,201629

DIRECT TAX

  • Income Tax: Income-tax (5th Amendment) Rules, 2016) – Rules in respect of fund manager regime under section 9A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Notification
  • Income Tax: Addition u/s 68 – merely because the bank statement an ITR of the lender were not submitted, in spite of submitting balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company, confirmation stating its PAN and also transactions are through account payee cheques and in absence of any inquiry, we are of the view that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee
  • Income Tax: Penalty u/s 271C – non deduction of tds u/s 194LA – there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for non-deduction of TDS since it had recovered the TDS from the concerned as soon as the violation of law was brought into assessee’s notice
  • Income Tax: Agricultural lands in terms of Sec 2(14) – Though the circumstance that the land is classified as Agricultural in the revenue records and the Village Panchayats President, Navallur, has certified that the land is away from municipality, other circumstances proves otherwise – Held as not an agriculture land
  • Income Tax: The assessee had a dividend income (income from other sources). Thus the assessee fell within the purview of the exception carved out in the explanation to Section 73 and that consequently the assessee would not be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business for the purpose of Sec. 73(1).
  • Income Tax: Addition made on inflation of purchases of raw material u/s. 69 – CIT(A) has wrongly relied on the input output consumption ratio – addition deleted

INDIRECT TAX            

  • Service Tax: Validity of Tribunal’s order waiving the penalty – the question of applicability of section 80 w.e.f. 14-5-2015 has not been examined by the Tribunal at all. There is rather no reference to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Tribunal’s order is cryptic and the reasons are wholly unsatisfactory, needs to be quashed and set aside – HC
  • Central Excise: Differential duty demand – demand arose on account of the fact that the appellant cleared the goods from its depot at a price higher than the price at which the duty was paid at the time of clearance from the factory – demand confirmed
  • Central Excise: SSI Exemption – The notification as amended was very clear and unambiguous. In the era of self assessment, it is the responsibility of the assessee to correctly determine the duty as per law. It is seen that the appellant failed to do so in this case
  • Central Excise: Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods – stock taking was done by way of eye estimation – the allegation of shortage of raw materials, does not stand. – demand set aside
  • Central Excise: Refund claim – duty liability subsequent to clearance of their products – unjust enrichment – when duty is paid after clearance of goods, on insistence of anti-evasion branch, burden of duty is not passed on to the customers – refund allowed
  • Central Excise: Differential duty – as the appellant was clearing the goods on payment of duty and subsequently on their own revised the price and discharged the differential duty there seems to be no violation of any provisions – Demand on interest confirmed – But, no penalty be levied
  • Central Excise: MRP based valuation – removal of goods without packing – It is not the packaging that determines the applicability of mandate of affixing the ‘retail sale price’ but the product itself. Consequences of non-conforming packaging are not escapement from the mandate but the enforcement of penal detriment – appellant is eligible for the abatement
  • Central Excise: The duty can be demanded from a manufacturer of the goods as it is a factum record that the impugned goods have been fabricated on job work basis by the contractors, therefore, as per the Central Excise provision, the appellant cannot be the manufacturer of the said goods.
  • Customs: Rejection of refund claim – Period of limitation – Once the appellant has been given acknowledgement unless until this held to be fake or forged, the said acknowledgement has to be accepted as proof of filing the refund claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances; Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. For query or help, contact:  info@carajput.com or call at 9555555480 Continue reading