Search Results For: Bharat Raichandani


Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening: If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. A writ petition to challenge the reopening will not be entertained

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 296 ITR 90 Bom has provided that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections of the assessee, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order of objections. The petitioner by its conduct destroyed this formula provided by the Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra), making it impossible for the assessing officer to wait for four weeks after disposal of objections without running the risk of allowing the assessment to be time barred

CST vs. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 17, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Service-tax on maintenance of property: Under the MOFA, the builder/ developer is under a statutory obligation to look after the day-to-day upkeep, maintenance and repair of the property till conveyance to the co-op society. Such maintenance of the structure is not rendering a taxable service as per s. 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994

The promoter has to maintain, safeguard and protect the property and look after the day-to-day wear and tear. Therefore, when he maintains the structure or repairs it, he is not rendering a taxable service in the sense envisaged by the Financial Act, 1994. If one loses complete focus or sight of the backdrop in which the so called service is rendered, then, the conclusion as erroneous and suggested by the Revenue will be reached. The deposit or the monies themselves are held and appropriated towards payment of taxes, etc., popularly known as outgoings. The building and the Flats therein has to stand intact till all the Flats or units are sold and the statutory obligations are fully discharged. This is not a service of the nature understood by Section 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is not a contractor simplicitor of maintenance of immovable property. It is not as if there is a existing building comprising of Flats, fully occupied, the maintenance and upkeep of which is handed over under a contract. It is a statutory obligation superimposed on a contract to sell a Flat/unit in a building to be constructed on a piece or parcel of land. That cannot be confused with a taxable service as defined under the Finance Act, 1994. The day-to=day upkeep, maintenance and repair is till the statutory duty is fully performed as noted above.

Top