Thursday, 13 August 2015

SC Stay On Advocates Service-Tax + ITAT Raps CBDT For 'Grave Assault On Trust And Reputation Of Fair Play


Bombay Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court)


Interim stay of the operation and implementation of the judgement of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of service-tax on lawyers granted

In P. C. Joshi vs. UOI, a Writ Petition was filed in the Bombay High Court to challenge the levy of service-tax on advocates. It was claimed that an advocate renders services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned in the Finance Act 1994. It was also contended that advocacy is not a business but a profession and a noble one

 

ACIT vs. R.P.G.Credit & Capital Ltd (ITAT Delhi)


Strictures passed against the Dept for ‘mischievous adamancy to attempt to mislead the Tribunal’, ‘obduracy and adamancy in filing meritless appeal’, ‘travesty of justice’, ‘Mocking at the system by filing the appeals’, ‘grave assault on the trust and reputation of fair play enjoyed by the tax administration’ etc

We are pained to address the serious damage done by this deliberate, mischievous and selective reference to facts by such responsible persons which grievously damages the public faith and belief in the honest fair play of the tax administration. The conscious and selective reference to facts demonstrates that at the very stage of filing of the appeal its fate and conclusion was known for which specific purpose the facts were attempted to be obfuscated. The filing of present appeal with complete knowledge of its fate by the Revenue only reflects the mischievous adamancy to attempt to mislead the Tribunal and waste the time of the Court and the officers concerned

 

DCIT vs. Cybertech Systems & Software P. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)


S. 271(1)(c): Claim that interest income is eligible for s. 10B exemption, though upheld by the ITAT for an earlier year, is so implausible that it attracts penalty for concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

We, in view of the foregoing, find no merit in the assessee’s case. It, to our mind, has not adduced any explanation, much less substantiated it, except for a bald assertion (i.e., of the said interest income as being a part of the assessee’s business income). The reliance on the decisions by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court, which we have found to be in fact supportive of the Revenue’s case, with the law in the matter being, in fact, well settled, is only a false plea or a ruse. Reliance on the decision by the tribunal for a subsequent year (AY 2000-01) is, under the circumstances, again, completely misplaced. A plausible explanation towards its’ claim/s saves penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), in view of, again, the settled law in the matter which though is completely missing in the present case

 

CIT vs. Hind Agro Industries (ITAT Chandigarh)


S. 144: If books are rejected and Gross Profit rate is estimated, separate disallowance of expenses cannot be made

When such an estimate is made it is in substitution of the income that is to be computed under s. 29. In other words, all the deductions which are referred to under s. 29 are deemed to have been taken into account while making such an estimate. This will also that the embargo placed in s. 40 also taken into account

No comments: