Fees For “Routine Technical Repairs” Not Taxable As “Fees For Technical Services”: ITAT Hyderabad

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs Fees For "Routine Technical Repairs" Not Taxable As "Fees For Technical Services": ITAT Hyderabad
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

ADIT vs. BHEL-GE-Gas Turbine Servicing (ITAT Hyderabad)

Fees for "routine technical repairs" not assessable as "fees for technical services"

 

The assessee paid sums to foreign parties for repairing and refurbishment of equipment. The AO held that the payments constituted "fees for technical services" u/s 9(1)(vii) and that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS u/s 195 r.w.s. 201 though the assessee argued that as there was no intellectual aspect involved in the repairs and refurbishment activity, it was no assessable as "fees for technical services". The CIT (A) allowed the claim. On appeal by the department to the Tribunal, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CIT vs. Hans Christian Gass (Bombay High Court)

Ignorance of law caused by complicated provisions amounts to "bona fide belief"

Bombay High Court Takes Liberal View On S. 271(1)(c) Penalty

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs Bombay High Court Takes Liberal View On S. 271(1)(c) Penalty
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Hans Christian Gass (Bombay High Court)

Ignorance of law caused by complicated provisions amounts to "bona fide belief"

 

The assessee, a foreign national, was an employee of Sandvik AB, Sweden. He was deputed to India and appointed Managing Director of Sandvik Asia Ltd. In addition to the salary from Sandvik Asia, he received an amount from Sandvik AB, Sweden, being the difference between the tax rates in India and Sweden. In the ROI, the assessee did not offer the amount received from Sandvik AB to tax even though it was taxable in India. On being asked by the AO, the assessee offered the same to tax and paid tax thereon for all years including the earlier and subsequent AYs. The AO levied penalty on the ground that the assessee was assisted by tax experts and so ignorance of the law was no excuse. However, the Tribunal deleted the penalty on the ground that (i) there were multiple amendments to the statutory provisions (s. 10(b)(vii)) and the concept of grossing-up embedded therein is of a technical nature and out of the scope of common knowledge of the tax payers, (ii) the possibility of mistake by even tax experts cannot be ruled out; (iii) the assessee relied on the tax experts and signed the ROI, (iv) the conduct of the assessee in paying up the taxes for all the years including those that were beyond reassessment showed his bona fides, (v) the claim of bona fide belief need not be substantiated with documentary evidence but can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence; (vi) penalty is not an automatic consequence of addition to income; (vii) concealment implies that the person is hiding, covering up or camouflaging an income; penalty is not leviable in case where assessee is able to provide a 'bona fide' explanation; penalty is not leviable in cases where assessee made errors ,under bona fide beliefs. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Tecnimont ICB Private Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Third Member)

A "controlled transaction" can never be regarded as "comparable" even if at ALP

CA Act Amendment

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Harshit <h.y.malpani008@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Subject: {jalgaoncas} CA Act Amendment
To: jalgaoncas@googlegroups.com


Hi,
There has been an amendment in the CA Act.Kindly take a note of the same.

CA Course – Changes w.e.f 02.08.2012 – Amendment in CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS REGULATIONS, 1988 – Degree / PG holders / CS Exe Passed /
CWA Inter Passed EXEMPTED FROM C.P.T; The terms PCC / IPCC came back
to "INTERMEDIATE"

1) Any Graduate / Post Graduate with 55% marks by studying any three
papers of 100 marks each out of Accounting, Auditing, Mercantile Laws,
Corporate Laws, Economics, Management (including Financial
Management), Taxation (including
Direct Tax Laws and Indirect Tax Laws), Costing, Business
Administration or Management Accounting CAN STUDY CA COURSE WITHOUT
C.P.T EXAM;

2) Intermediate Pass of CWA / CS Course CAN STUDY CA COURSE WITHOUT C.P.T EXAM;

3) The term PCC Exam / Course changed to "Intermediate (Professional
Competence) Examination;

4) The term IPCC Exam / Course changed to "Intermediate (Integrated
Professional Competence) Course.

For more details please download the attachment attached herewith.
Click here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=1ApVti0YLiqk08CuDrc8szNKhf9dQRyNOllepEad-cJeH0tGxILhpDAJbkDO8

--
Regards,
CA Harshit Malpani

No S. 201 TDS Liability On Payer If AO Does Not Show Non-payment By Recipient: ITAT Kolkata

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs No S. 201 TDS Liability On Payer If AO Does Not Show Non-payment By Recipient: ITAT Kolkata
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Ramakrishna Vedanta Math vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Before imposing s. 201 TDS Liability, AO to show that recipient has not paid tax

 

The AO passed an order u/s 201 in which he held the assessee to be in default for failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C on payments made to contractors. The assessee's argument that in view of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages 293 ITR 226 (SC), the tax could not be recovered from it as it must have been recovered from the recipient was rejected on the ground that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the recipient had paid the taxes. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CBDT's Press Release On Extension Of Due Date Of Filing Of ROI

Stay by Delhi HC to CBEC circular dated 8-5-2012 reg service tax on invoices prior to 31-3-2012

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V S Datey <dateyvs@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Subject: NashiCAs Stay by Delhi HC to CBEC circular dated 8-5-2012 reg service tax on invoices prior to 31-3-2012

CBE&C has issued circular dated 8-5-2012 stating that even if service was provided before 31-3-2012, service tax will be payable @ 12% if ayment is received after 1-4-2012. Hon. Delhi High Court has garnted stay to this circular on 27-7-2012 in a writ etition filed by Delhi CA Society. Next hearing is fixxed o 14th AUgust 2012 V S Datey  Author of books on Indirect Taxes and Corporate Laws,  Mobile 0 98231 55883. Landline - 91 (020) 2295 1892 Pune, Maharashtra, India

ITAT Can Restrain AO From Giving Effect To S. 263 Revision Order: Delhi High Court

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs ITAT Can Restrain AO From Giving Effect To S. 263 Revision Order: Delhi High Court
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. ITAT (Delhi High Court)

Tribunal has the power to stay proceedings to give effect to s. 263 revision order. Plea as to jurisdiction of AO/CIT, even if given up, can always be raised

 

The CIT passed an order u/s 263 by which he set-aside the assessment order and directed the AO to frame a fresh assessment. The assessee challenged the s. 263 order in a Writ Petition. The Court directed the CIT to pass a fresh order u/s 263. The assessee challenged the High Court's verdict in the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the CIT passed the s. 263 order and so the assessee withdrew the SLP before the Supreme Court and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed a stay application that a stay may be granted to prevent the AO from giving effect to the revision order as there would be multiplicity of proceedings if the AO passed a fresh assessment order which would be futile if the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal granted stay of the assessment proceedings pending before the AO and also directed production of papers relating to initiation of the s. 263 proceedings. The department filed a Writ Petition to challenge the order of the Tribunal on the ground that (a) as the assessee had challenged the initiation of the s. 263 proceedings before the High Court & Supreme Court and then withdrawn the challenge (SLP), it was estopped from arguing the point before the Tribunal and (b) the Tribunal has no power to stay the assessment proceedings. HELD dismissing the Petition:

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Scope of search assessments u/s 153A: The unending controversy

Scope of search assessments u/s 153A: The unending controversy

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: editor@itatonline.org <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Message from EGroup of SolapurCAs Scope of search assessments u/s 153A: The unending controversy
To: editor@itatonline.org

 

Dear Subscriber,

Scope of search assessments u/s 153A: The unending controversy

CA Vidhan Surana & CA Sunil Maloo

S. 153A, which deals with search assessments continues to baffle tax experts. In All Cargo, the Special Bench held that "completed assessments" can be assessed only on the basis of seized / incriminating material. While one view is that this interpretation is incorrect, the authors have taken the converse view after a careful study of the entire law on the subject

(Click Here To Read More)

Regards,

Editor,

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Md. Serajuddin & Brothers vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)

For s. 40(b)(v) limits, P&L A/c profits (including non-business income) have to be taken & not only "profits & gains of business" as computed u/s 28 to 43D