1. IT Noti.: Time limit for submitting ITR-V for electronically filed Returns for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 extended to 31.10.2015  (Click for detail)
   

2. FinMin clarifies Service Charges Collected by Restaurants/Hotels/Eateries Retained by the Restaurants/Hotels/Eateries and are Not ‘Service Tax’ Imposed by the Government  (Click for detail)
   

3. DVAT Cir.: On order to streamline the matching of Annexure 2A and 2B the VAT department has formed certain procedures which are open for the opinion of various stakeholders till 20-07-2015, before its finalization  (Click for detail)
   

4. Tax Talk: Filing of income tax returns made simpler for Aadhaar card holders  (Click for detail)
   

5. NRO Account Without RBI Nod  (Click for detail)
   

6. How to restructure your finances with tax-free perks  (Click for detail)

1.  Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. Nos. 40 to 43/Asr/2015, Date of Order: 10.06.2015, ITAT - Amritsar

Whether the Ld CIT(A) is correct in holding that payment on account of financial transactions bounded by statute for laying of sewerage pipe lines, water  supply lines made to Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, for work undertaken as entrusted by statutory law, was in pursuance of a contract and therefore, liable to deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C.

Held No

The appellant has made payments to Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board for execution of work relating to sewerage pipe lines and for treatment of polluted water of the city. However, such payments are out of legal obligations rather than contractual arrangements. It is only when payments are made “in pursuance of a contract” that the provisions of section 194C come into play. The contract may be oral or written, express or implied but there must be a contract nevertheless. In the present case, the payment is on account of legal obligation under section 24(1) of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act 1976. Accordingly, the provisions of section 194C did not come into play on the facts of this case.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, I.T.A. Nos. 3317/Mum/2009 & 1692/Mum/2010, Date of Pronouncement: 10.06.2015, ITAT - Mumbai

Whether the long-term capital loss on sale of equity shares (subject to STT), exempt from tax u/s 10(38) can be set-off against the taxable LTCG on sale of another asset.

Held Yes

The whole genre of income under the head capital gain on transfer of shares is a source, which is taxable under the Act. If the entire source is exempt or is considered as not to be included while computing the total income then in such a case, the profit or loss resulting from such a source do not enter into the computation at all. However, if a part of the source is exempt by virtue of particular “provision” of the Act for providing benefit to the assessee, then in our considered view it cannot be held that the entire source will not enter into computation of total income.

In our view, the concept of income including loss will apply only when the entire source is exempt and not in the cases where only one particular stream of income falling within a source is falling within exempt provisions. Section 10(38) excludes in expressed terms only the income arising from transfer of Long term capital asset being equity share or equity fund which is chargeable to STT and not entire source of income from capital gains arising from transfer of shares. It does not lead to exclusion of computation of capital gain of Long term capital asset or Short term capital asset being shares. Accordingly, Long term capital loss on sale of shares would be allowed to be set off against Long term capital gain on sale of land in accordance with section 70(3) (Schrader Duncan Ltd (2012) 50 SOT 68 distinguished;Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. Asst. CIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj) not followed)

(Please click here for judgment)
     

1. M/s Metro Motors Vs. CCE Daman, Appeal No. ST/13975/2013-SM, Date of Decision: 02.01.2015, CESTAT - Ahmadabad

Issue:

Whether the amount deposited on instance of investigating officer be treated as payment of service tax and do Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be governed for taking the refund of amount paid in excess?

Held:  No

The appellant during the investigation at the instance of the visiting officers, deposited an amount of Rs. 6,85,200/- through TR-6 challan dt.19.09.2005. A show cause notice dt. 25.09.2008 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax of Rs. 6,07,032/- under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period 01.07.2003 to 27.08.2005. It was also proposed to appropriate the amount deposited by them along with interest during the investigation.  The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order to the extent the demand of Service Tax was reduced to Rs.4,43,192/-. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.2,66,907/- as deposited by them during the investigation.  The adjudicating authority sanctioned and paid a refund of Rs. 2,66,907/-.  Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).  By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order on the ground that the appellant has not filed their claim within one year from the date of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is hit by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944.  Hence, the appellant filed this appeal.

The Hon’ble CESTAT held that in respect of the deposits the provisions of Section 11B can never be made applicable. The excess amount deposited is liable to be refunded back. Accordingly, Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  M/s. Transcend Mt Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T. Service Tax, Appeal No. ST/51457-51458 & 54976/2014-ST(SM), Date of Decision: 28.01.2015, CESTAT - New Delhi

Issue: Whether refund claim be allowed if the claim was filed online but the hard copies of the same were not deposited with the department?

Held: Yes

The appellant filed refund claims through electronic filing on ACES web portal as per the CBEC Circular No. 919/09/2010 CX dated 23.3.2010 and Trade Notice No. 14/ST/09 dated 17.9.09 and under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the Cenvat credit remaining unutilized in their credit account. The appellant has not filed hard copy of the refund claim filed (electronically). Therefore, their refund claim was held as time barred. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the impugned order holding the refund claim as time barred.

The Hon’ble CESTAT observed that the refund claim has been filed electronically in time. As this refund claim was filed electronically within time limit prescribed as  per Section 11B of the Act and as held by this Tribunal in the case of NCS Pearson India Pvt. Ltd. (supra),  the Hon’ble CESTAT held that the date of filing of refund claim electronically should be considered as date of filing of refund claim. Hence, the refund claim is allowed even if the hard copies are not submitted with the department.

(Please click here for judgment)
 

1.  Fast Track Call Cab (P.) Ltd. Vs. M/s ANI Technologies (P.) Ltd., Case No. 06 of 2015, Date of Order: 24.04.2015, Competition Commission of India

Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position- OLA was following predatory pricing to oust other players and was abusing its dominant position in relevant market as they were providing huge discount to customers and incentives to drivers in Bengaluru

(Please click here for judgment)
      
 

V.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

 Golden Rules:

  "An arrow can only be shot by pulling it backward.
So when life is dragging us back with difficulties,
it means that it is going to launch us into something great"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA