Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Jurispruden tiol – tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

ITAT and CIT (A) can invoke provisions of section 14A for deciding the issue in proceedings pending before such authorities - Restriction on AO cannot be stretched to appellate authorities: ITAT Special Bench

According to the principle of harmonious construction and after considering the plain meaning of the provision and the proviso, it is quite clear that both have to be applied in their respective fields. The proviso only restrains the Assessing Officer from invoking the provisions of sections 147 and 154. This restriction cannot be stretched too far and has to be confined to the area which it covers. That appears to be the intention of the Legislature. If the restriction was to be applied to other areas and was to cover other authorities for curtailing their powers, the same could have been specifically provided. The proviso does not talk of restricting the power of CIT ( A) or ITAT. Hence, powers of these authorities are to be exercised as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act and no restriction can be inferred from the proviso.

Kerala General Sales Tax Act –

Satilon coated cookware & Teflon coated cookware are not ‘aluminium household articles' but ‘non-stick cookware' – Amendment made is clarificatory in nature: Supreme Court

THE issue before the Supreme Court was whether the “ Satilon brand cookware” sold by the appellants is an "aluminium household utensil made of aluminum " and "aluminium alloys" classifiable under Entry 5 of the First Schedule under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or whether the said product would fall under Entry 104 which pertains to "pressure cooker, cook and serve ware to keep food warm, casseroles, water filters and similar home appliances not coming under any other entry

Service Tax

Booking orders in India for foreign principal is export of services: CESTAT

Service Tax- booking orders in India – export of services :

On a very careful consideration of the matter, the appellants have produced documentary evidence to show that they had rendered the services to their foreign principals by booking orders in India for their goods. Refund Claims relate to the goods supplied by the foreign principals based on the orders booked by the appellant. Moreover, in the Agreement relied on by the Revenue, para 9 relates to the services rendered by the appellants. This para has not been referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order at all. On the basis of the records, I am convinced that the services rendered have been exported in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. Hence, the appellants are entitled for the refund of the Service Tax already paid.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements