TIOL-DDT 807 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 807 </font><font size="3"></font><font size="2"><br> 19.02.2008 <br> Tuesday </font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ITAT cases pending with Special Benches </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You want to know what the important issues that are waiting for decision by the Special Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Here they are. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DHL Operations B. V. Netherlands: </strong>Whether or not, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Art . 5.5 and Art . 5.6 of DTA (with Netherlands) and having regard to its activities, it can be said that Airfreight Ltd. was the agent of the assessee so that it can be held that the assessee had a PE in India? And if the answer is in the affirmative, whether or not the income from inbound shipments can be treated as attributable to the PE?” The whole of the case is referred to the Special Bench for disposal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Ltd.: </strong>Whether the CIT (A) was justified in holding that the notional interest of Rs.23,10,000 /-calculated at the rate of 15% on interest free deposit of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- placed with the assessee by the Citibank N.A. be taken into account in determining annual value under section 23 (1)(b) more so when the deposit of Rs.1,54,00,000 /- was invested in income earning assets, which income was separately assessed? As per order dt . 17.10.2006 of President, the Members of Special Bench to hear the whole appeal and also consider above referred question. The Bench may also modify the question if deemed necessary. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Daga Capital Management Ltd: </strong>Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are applicable with respect to the dividend income earned by an assessee, engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities, on the shares held as stock-in-trade and earning of such dividend is incidental to trading in shares? The President vide his order dt . 04.07.2007 has observed as: "In view of reference of the Bench Shri . G.E. Veerabhadrappa , Vice President, Mumbai, K.C. Singhal , JM , G.C. Gupta , JM would hear the entire appeal as a Special Bench." </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait BSC </strong>: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, can it be said that where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract" As per order dt. 21.09.2007 of the President entire Appeal is referred for disposal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd.: </strong></font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. Whether deemed dividend u/s 2(22 )( e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 can be assessed in the hands of a person other than shareholder of the lender? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. Whether the words “such shareholder” occurring in section 2(22 )( e) refer to a shareholder who is both the “registered” shareholder and the “beneficial shareholder”? As per order dt 21.09.2007 of the President, entire Appeal is referred for disposal. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Mahindra & Mahindra: </strong>Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, an order u/s 195 r.w.s . 201 of the Income tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation within 4 years from the end of the relevant Financial year in the absence of any express provision in the Act? As per order dt . 21.09.2007 of the President, entire appeal is to be disposed of by the Special Bench. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Ekta Promotors (P) Ltd., New Delhi . </strong>Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under Section 234 D should be charged from assessment year 2004-2005 or with reference to regular assessment framed after 01.06.2003 irrespective of the assessment years involved or irrespective of the date when refund was granted?" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per order of the President, the Special Bench, while disposing of the entire appeal would consider the question, referred to by the Bench. They are also authorized to modify, change, delete or add question (s), for purpose of reference. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Li Chong Tannery, Sri. Shyamal Kumar Dey , M/s Chang Hing Tannery, M/s Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha : </strong>To consider the validity of the disallowance under section 40A (3) of I.T.Act , 1961. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Star Paper Mills Ltd.: </strong>Whether, the provision for deferred tax can be added while determining the book profit u/s 115JB as per clauses (a) to (c) of the Explanation below Sec. 115JB ( 2)? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s IVRCL Infrastructure & Projects Ltd., Hyderabad: </strong>Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the assessee is a ' C ivil Contractor ' and not a ' developer of an infrastructure facility in as much as the assessee has filed to show even a Single instance where it operates any of ' infrastructural facility ' , therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction us 80-I A of the IT Act, 1961." </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per order dt . 26.03.2007 of the President, Members of Special Bench to dispose of entire appeal. Can modify, change, add in question referred. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/ s.Rajalakshmi Mills Coimbatore Ltd. ,: </strong>Contribution to Approved Gratuity Fund if more than actuarial valuation is the excess over the actuarial valuation not allowable as expenditure. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., Chennai: </strong>Whether the amount collected from the borrowers to meet the interest tax liability could be taxed as interest under the Interest-Tax Act, 1974? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Special Bench is constituted to hear and dispose of the entire appeal and would also consider the question referred in accordance with law. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Shri . Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat , Shri . Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat . </strong></font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the applicants are liable to deduct the tax at source under section 194 C of the Income Tax Act from the payment made to Mukamdams and Transporters by Zone samiti ? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(B) Whether the applicants are liable for deduction of tax under section 194 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the payments made as advances to its member farmers for purchase of sugarcane when no expenditure towards cutting, harvesting and transportation is debited in the books of the applicants? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ingredients of section 194 of the Income tax Act, 1961 are attracted to make the applicants liable to deduct the tax at source form the payments made to Mukadams and Transporters who are member farmers of the Zone Samiti and who have no contact with the applicant? </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per order dt . 27.08.2007 of the President, Special Bench with Zonal Vice- President & S/ Shri . R.P.Tolani & N.S.Saini would hear and dispose of the entire appeals including the questions referred to the Special Bench. Usual notices be issued for wide publicity. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd.: </strong>Whether in view of the provisions of Section 80 IA ( 5) of the income-tax Act, 1961 the profit from the eligible business for the purposes of deduction u/ s.80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the national brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per order dt . 21.09.2007 of the President: Entire appeal is to be heard by the Bench. Question referred may also be changed if necessary. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Gujarat Credit Corpn.Ltd ., Ahmedabad : </strong>CIT - Ahmedabad -II, Ahmadabad requested for constitution of Special Bench vide Letter dt.16.04.2007 . As per order dt.18.12.2007 of the President "A Special Bench comprising of S/ Shri . R.P.Garg , R.P. Tolani , & I.S.Verma would hear and dispose of the appeal at Ahmedabad . Give notice to all concerned." </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Mr. Tejinder Singh HUF , Prop. M/s Raunaq Industries, Amritsar : </strong></font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. whether , the benefit of Jewellery disclosed under V.D.I.S. 1997 is Limited to the first stage i.e. the source of investment or it extends further to the sale of Jewellery also? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Whether, having accepted the disclosure of Jewellery under V. D.I.S. , the Department is debarred from making further enquiry into the genuineness of sale of such jewellery? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. If answer to the above questions are against the assessee, whether the assessee is required to prove the genuineness of sale of jewellery disclosed under V.D.I.S. 1997 in the same manner as required under section 68 or 69 of the Act? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Special Bench, while disposing of the appeal would consider the questions referred to by the Bench. They are also authorized to modify, change, delete or add question(s), for purpose of reference </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Sh. Sonu Verma , Prop. M/s Shiva Jewellers , Jaitu : </strong>Whether, the jurisdiction to complete Block Assessment u/s 158 BC is conferred on the AO by service of a warrant of authorization u/s 132A by a competent authority or on physical handing over the books of account/ documents/ assets etc. requisitioned, to Income Tax Authority concerned? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/s Shree Ram Lime Products Ltd., Jodhpur: </strong>Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the period of limitation for completion of the block assessment as per sec. 158BE read with Explanation 2 is to be reckoned from the end of the month in which last Panchanama on the conclusion of search is drawn on the assessee ' or ' last Panchnama of the last authorization even when it is not last Panchanama drawn on the assessee and one or more valid panchanamas are drawn on the assessee thereafter in execution of any former authorization ' . </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per order dt . 14.11.2007 of the President "Special Bench comprising of S/ Shri . R.P.Garg , Vice-President, I.C.Sudhir , J.M. Hari Om Maratha, J.M . would hear the entire appeal. Can also modify the question referred to Special Bench. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> For more details <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/specialbench.htm" target="_blank">Click here. </a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Issues heard by the Special Benches, yet to be decided. </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The following issues have been heard by the Special Benches but orders are yet to be issued. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Whether or not the amount received by the assessee employee on redemption of stock appreciation rights constitutes income liable to tax in his hands irrespective of the fact that no shares or stock are actually allotted to him and that the assessee does not have any rights to receive such shares or stock? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Whether in the light of decision in 232 ITR 2 it must be held that the profit received by the assessee is revenue income chargeable to tax. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the process of pasteurization of milk amounts to process of manufacture/production for the purpose of <br> claiming deduction u/s 80I and 80HHA . </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the provision of Section 14A can be invoked in the appellate proceeding? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case decisions of ITAT, in the case of Navin Bharat Industries Ltd. ( ITA No. 2201/ Bom /94 for Assessment Year 1990-91) and decision in the case of Hexa Securities and Finance Co. Ltd. ( ITA No.2308 /Del/04) are applicable or distinguishable? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, and having regard to all the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Income-tax authorities were justified in estimating the ALV of the property at Nos. 14-16 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi at Rs.932,888 /- as against Rs. 5,12,932/- declared by the assessee in the return? </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of computer software is of revenue nature or capital nature? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. If the expenditure incurred on computer software is held to be of capital nature, what would be the rate of depreciation applicable thereon? </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company is a financial company under the Interest-tax Act, 1974, liable to tax there under on the revenue income earned on its financial transactions?" </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font> <font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font> <font color="#006600">– Tomorrow ' s cases </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><strong><b><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_31.gif" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="191" height="160" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></b></strong></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central Excise </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Not a colourful picture for paint manufacturer Berger Paints - Tribunal orders pre-deposit of Rs 2.5 Cr, but was it ... </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong>brief facts of the case are that the applicant M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes which are the goods notified and subjected to assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of MRP of the product. One of the products manufactured by the applicant is base material for paints which is intended to obtain colour range of over 5000 shades by tinting through a system called Berger Colour Bank Dispensing System, which are installed at the premises of their dealers. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The company manufactures base material for paints and imports the colourants on payment of CVD . The base paint is cleared from the factory in a packed tin, on payment of appropriate duty of excise on the basis of MRP of the paints under Sec. 4A and is sold to the dealers through the applicants depot network. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The colourant, which is imported by the applicant, is subsequently dispatched to the depots. In the dealers' premises, on identification of a particular shade by the ultimate consumer, the base in pre-packaged form is opened, colourants are added to the quantity required by the consumer and the same is tinted. After tinting, the shade of the consumer's choice is obtained. In this process, the lid or cap of the package containing base material is opened and after tinting it with the colour <strong><font color="#FF6633">the same is delivered to the customer. </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Journalist loses income tax case; Validity of search cannot be questioned in Tribunal; unexplained cash- addition correct; foreign income, no deduction allowed as procedure was not followed; expenditure not explained with proof- not allowed : ITAT </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SEVERAL</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong>issues are decided in this appeal by noted journalist Iftikhar Gilani and also by Revenue against the order passed by CIT (A). The assessee was found with a huge unaccounted cash transaction of about four lakhs of rupees! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Validity of search u/s 132 of Income Tax Act.</font> </strong> The assessee has challenged the powers exercised u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO. According to the assessee, there was no material information in possession of the department to justify search u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961, so, the proceedings u/s 132 were invalid and illegal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal held that in view of the Special Bench decision of ITAT in the case of Promain Ltd, the question of validity of search cannot be challenged either before the CIT (A) or before the ITAT as it could be adjudicated upon only by the High Court. Hence, the Tribunal having no jurisdiction to decide the validity of search, the issue cannot be raised before the ITAT and accordingly the ground involving this issue challenging the validity of search is liable to be rejected as such and accordingly the ground of appeal is rejected. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Consequential search - authorisation issued by JDI is valid; unaccounted cash not explained with proof – addition correct; value of flat – retracted statement cannot be accepted – carpenter's ' bill ' for woodwork – carpenter was not produced before AO – addition is correct : ITAT </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THESE</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong>two appeals, one filed by the assessee and the other filed by revenue arising from the order of CIT (A), New Delhi , were heard together and several issues are decided. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you have read the case of journalist Gilani , this is his wife's case. Revenue had found that she had huge unaccounted wealth:- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Unaccounted cash deposits in banks of Rs. 3 ,66,600 /- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. She had purchased a flat for Rs. 13 Lakhs but undervalued it to Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. A chit was found in her house which is said to be a bill for doing woodwork for Rs. 1 ,10,750 /-. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Advertising – agency commission received from broadcasting and print media – not taxable: CESTAT </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> appellants render taxable service under the category of advertising agency service. They entered into contract with their clients for providing advertisement agency service. The appellants render advertising services to various clients in the form of creative agency wherein they create advertisement by themselves or their third party media agency wherein they do media printing and /or buying for advertisement to be published in print/ electronic media. They were receiving 15% agency commission from authorized broadcasting and print media during the period April 2000 to March 2001. The appellants had passed on the above mentioned commission to their clients. The case of the department is that the appellants should have included the whole amount of commission received by them in the gross taxable value. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for recovery of the differential service tax. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax to the tune of Rs. 1 ,16,29,505 /- under Section 73 read with Section 78, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act 1944. read with Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules. He demanded interest under Section 75. A penalty of Rs, 100/- per day was imposed under Section 76 of the Act. Penalty of Rs. 1 ,16,29,505 /- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act for proposing the value of taxable services. Further, a penalty of Rs, 1,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Act. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our columns tomorrow for the judgements </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until tomorrow with more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice time. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p> </body> </html>