|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1354
Issues involved: Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271D for loan transaction through journal entries violating section 269SS.
Issue 1: Cancellation of penalty u/s 271D
- The revenue appealed against the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 71,45,430 u/s 271D by CIT(A) for a loan transaction made through journal entries, contending it violated section 269SS.
- AO levied penalty after finding the loan amount was received otherwise than by Account Payee Cheque or Draft, deeming it a contravention of section 269SS.
- Assessee argued that transactions were not in cash but through journal entries, thus not violating section 269SS.
- CIT(A) referred to ITAT decisions where penalties were not levied for transactions through journal entries, citing the case of N.H.Securities Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT.
- CIT(A) upheld the cancellation of penalty u/s 271D based on the ITAT order, leading to the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue 2: Interpretation of law
- The AO alleged the transactions were made to evade tax, disregarding the Assessee's explanation that the loan was received through journal entries, not in cash.
- Assessee cited precedents like the case of Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. and Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd., where penalties were not imposed for transactions through journal entries.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty, emphasizing that penalty provisions are not attracted for transactions made through journal entries as per previous Tribunal decisions.
- The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271D based on the consistent interpretation of the law regarding transactions through journal entries.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1353
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of notional interest on interest-free security deposit for determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) u/s 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(b).
2. Deduction of maintenance expenses under the head "Income from House Property."
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Notional Interest on Interest-Free Security Deposit
The Assessing Officer (AO) added notional interest on the interest-free security deposit to the rent received by the assessee to determine the ALV of the property. The AO relied on the case of Trivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., interpreting that the interest-free deposit forms part of the compensation for the premises and thus should be included in the ALV calculation.
The assessee appealed, arguing that the addition of notional interest was done without verifying facts and that the rent received was reasonable and comparable to similar properties. The security deposit was meant to ensure the tenant vacates the property after the lease period and to prevent misuse or damage.
The CIT(A) held that as per the jurisdictional High Court decision in J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd., the assessee's case falls u/s 23(1)(b), and no notional interest should be added to determine the ALV. The AO was directed to delete the notional interest while calculating the ALV.
The Revenue appealed, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of notional interest and that the case should be governed by Sec. 23(1)(a). The Tribunal referred to the co-ordinate Bench decision in DCIT Vs Reclamation Realty India Pvt. Ltd., which held that the actual rent received should be the annual value of the property u/s 23(1)(b), and notional interest on interest-free security deposit should not be added. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench.
Issue 2: Deduction of Maintenance Expenses
The AO disallowed maintenance expenses claimed by the assessee under the head "Income from House Property," arguing there is no provision to allow such expenses.
The assessee appealed, citing that the maintenance expenses relate to amenities provided and recovered from tenants. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, referencing the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 1998-99.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the ITAT's earlier decision that maintenance charges should be deducted while arriving at the ALV of the property u/s 23. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on both grounds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to exclude notional interest from the ALV calculation and to allow the deduction of maintenance expenses. The order was pronounced on January 28, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1352
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for assessment year 2006-07 regarding treatment of railway sidings as plant for depreciation.
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad, comprising Shri G.C.Gupta, Vice President, and Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member, heard the appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) for the assessment year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue included the contention that the CIT(A) erred in law and should not have directed to allow depreciation at the rate applicable to plant for railway sidings. The Departmental Representative supported the Assessing Officer's order, while the assessee's counsel relied on the CIT(A) order and cited relevant decisions from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, and the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue of whether railway sidings should be considered part of the plant was in favor of the assessee based on the decisions cited. Specifically, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had held that railway sidings are to be treated as part of 'plant'. As no contrary decision was presented by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that there was no error in following the decisions of the High Courts and holding that railway sidings are indeed part of 'plant'. Consequently, the grounds of appeal by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal on 7.1.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1351
Issues involved:
The issue involves a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee seeking a fresh order from the Tribunal after the ex-parte order dated 21/5/2010 was passed in the revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on the value of a membership card of the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Issue of Depreciation on Membership Card:
The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the assessee based on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Techno Shares and Stock Ltd. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court later reversed this decision, stating that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowed on a stock exchange membership card.
2. Ex-Parte Order and Subsequent Developments:
The assessee contended in the miscellaneous application that the ex-parte order was passed as their Chartered Accountant could not appear, leading to reliance on the Bombay High Court's decision. It was highlighted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court later overturned the High Court's decision, supporting the assessee's claim for depreciation on the membership card.
3. Rectification of Tribunal's Order:
After hearing submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the subsequent Supreme Court decision, which necessitated rectifying the order. Citing the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., the Tribunal held that the order allowing the revenue's appeal should be rectified, dismissing the appeal and upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on the membership card.
4. Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, rectifying the order in favor of the assessee based on the subsequent Supreme Court decision. The order of the Tribunal was amended to dismiss the revenue's appeal and uphold the depreciation claim on the stock exchange membership card.
This judgment showcases the importance of subsequent legal developments and the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on Tribunal orders, leading to the rectification of the initial decision in favor of the assessee.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1350
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of suppression of yield.
2. Deletion of addition on account of excess labor charges.
3. Treatment of loss on cancellation of forward contract as business loss.
Summary:
1. Suppression of Yield:
The first issue concerns the deletion of an addition of Rs. 29,74,132/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of suppressed yield. The AO noted that the assessee, engaged in the diamond business, showed a yield of 30.77% for polished diamonds, which was lower compared to other similar businesses. The AO estimated a suppressed yield of 1% and added Rs. 29,74,132/- to the income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the AO did not find defects in the books of account nor invoked provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that merely lower yield cannot justify rejection of book results.
2. Excess Labor Charges:
The second issue pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,12,797/- made by the AO on account of labor charges. The AO found that the labor charges of Rs. 375/- per carat claimed by the assessee were higher than the industry standard of Rs. 275/- to Rs. 350/- per carat. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee provided confirmations from labor parties with PAN numbers and that the increase in labor charges was justified by the higher gross profit ratio. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's disallowance was not supported by evidence.
3. Loss on Cancellation of Forward Contract:
The third issue involves the treatment of a loss of Rs. 4,62,105/- on the cancellation of a forward contract. The AO treated this as a speculation loss, while the CIT(A) treated it as a business loss. The Tribunal referred to a similar case (ACIT Circle 9 Surat v. M/s. Marvin Gems) where it was held that such losses, arising from hedging transactions to protect against foreign exchange fluctuations, should be treated as business losses. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the loss as a business loss.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all three issues, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 13/01/2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1349
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Book Result
2. Estimate of Gross Profit
Rejection of Book Result:
The appeal by the assessee challenges the order of CIT(A) confirming the rejection of Book Result due to the destruction of books and records in floods. The appellant argued that the mere fall in gross profit, without specific defects pointed out, should not lead to rejection. However, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies and added the difference in gross profit to the income. As the books of account were destroyed and the appellant failed to provide alternative evidence, the rejection of books was upheld, leading to the dismissal of this issue.
Estimate of Gross Profit:
The second issue raised by the assessee concerns the estimation of gross profit at Rs. 14,61,504, which was confirmed by CIT(A). The Assessing Officer based this estimation on the average profit of the last three years, considering the decline in gross profit. The options considered included extending the previous year's gross profit percentage or the average profit of the last three years. Ultimately, the gross profit was estimated at 33.97%, resulting in the addition of Rs. 14,61,504 to the income. The appellant contested this estimation, arguing that the reasons for the fall in profit were provided and not rejected. However, the estimation was upheld based on the available data and calculations presented during the assessment proceedings.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1348
Issues involved: Addition u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act and disallowance of fee paid to ROC.
Addition u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5027731/- u/s 41(1) of the IT Act, considering certain advances as revenue receipts due to cessation of liability. The Assessee contended that these amounts were credit balances arising from credit notes issued for various reasons. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition. However, the ITAT Delhi found that there was no evidence of actual remission or cessation of liability, as the creditors had not confirmed payment and the amounts were not written off in the books of accounts. Therefore, the ITAT Delhi ruled that the addition u/s 41(1) was not justified.
Disallowance of fee paid to ROC:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,10,700/- paid to ROC for increasing authorized share capital, deeming it as a capital expenditure. Citing relevant case law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The ITAT Delhi concurred with the decision, stating that the issue was settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court rulings referred to. Consequently, the ITAT Delhi upheld the disallowance of the fee paid to ROC.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the ITAT Delhi, with the orders pronounced on 28/01/2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1347
Issues involved: Application for stay of recovery order u/s wrongful availment of cenvat credit based on bogus invoices.
Summary:
The case involved an application for stay of an order dated 07/10.09.2009, which demanded the recovery of a significant amount u/s wrongful availment and utilization of cenvat credit. The allegations were related to the procurement of PVC compound necessary for manufacturing PVC insulated wires and cables from a specific company, M/s Kashish Products Impex Pvt. Limited, through bogus invoices. The Commissioner found the charge against the appellants to be established based on statements and evidence, while the appellants argued that the charge was unsubstantiated as they had proper records and documentation. The appellants were not allowed to cross-examine key witnesses, raising concerns about the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the findings were based on statements without proper verification and raised doubts about the denial of the right to cross-examination. Considering the financial difficulties faced by the appellants, the Tribunal granted a prima-facie waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned order until the appeal's disposal.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1346
Whether the respondent had claimed that he was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing at the enquiry and the same has caused serious prejudice to his defense?
Whether the Disciplinary Authority has not relied on any recommendations of the CVC and the respondent has failed to plead or prove any prejudice having been caused, the disciplinary proceedings can not be said to be vitiated?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1345
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal regarding penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court allowed the appellant to seek a review of the order by moving an application under the appropriate provisions of law.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1344
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05, with common grounds of appeal by the Department, including the treatment of a warehouse as an asset u/s. 2(ea)(i)(3) / 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and the utilization of the warehouse by the assessee or tenant for business purposes to claim exemption u/s. 2(ea)(i)(5).
Issue 1: Treatment of warehouse as an asset
The Department appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief to the assessee by excluding the warehouse from assessable wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer considered the warehouse as assessable wealth, but the Ld. CIT(A) reversed this decision based on the property's utilization for commercial activity, not solely by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized the amended provisions of the Wealth Tax Act post-Finance Act, 1992, focusing on how the property is utilized rather than who utilizes it. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the property is excluded from the list of assets as per Section 2(ea)(i)(3) and 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, leading to the Department's further appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue 2: Utilization of warehouse for business purposes
The Department argued that the rental portion of the warehouse should not be excluded from computing assessable wealth, citing precedents that rented property cannot be considered used by the assessee for business purposes. However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act post-amendments and previous case law, emphasizing that the nature and purpose of property use for commercial activity determine its exclusion as an asset. As a part of the warehouse was used by the assessee for business and the rest let out for commercial purposes, the entire warehouse was deemed used for commercial activity, leading to its exclusion as an asset under Section 2(ea)(i)(5).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years, dismissing the Department's appeals. The judgment highlighted the importance of the commercial nature of property use in determining its classification as an asset under the Wealth Tax Act.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1343
Whether the MRTP Act is a self-contained Code or not, if so, to what effect?
Whether, in any event, all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 with emphasis on Section 11A can be read into the provisions of the MRTP Act?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1342
Issues involved: The legality of Alert Circular No. 31/2010-JNCH DT. 05.08.2010 issued by the Respondent, and the lack of opportunity for hearing before its issuance.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Legality of Alert Circular
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned Alert Circular No. 31/2010-JNCH DT. 05.08.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner's counsel argued that the circular was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the circular was merely an alert circular, not casting any stigma or blacklisting the petitioner. It was explained that such alerts are issued for inspection purposes when goods at the port do not match the declaration certificate. The court held that the circular should not be considered stigmatic towards the petitioner and clarified that the petitioner had not been blacklisted by the department. The respondents were directed to publish this clarification on their website.
Issue 2: Lack of Opportunity for Hearing
The petitioner's counsel raised the issue of lack of opportunity for hearing before the issuance of the circular. However, the court's decision focused on clarifying the non-stigmatic nature of the circular towards the petitioner, rather than delving into the procedural aspect of affording a hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with the above observations and directions, without any order as to costs.
Conclusion
The High Court of Delhi held that the impugned Alert Circular No. 31/2010-JNCH DT. 05.08.2010 was not stigmatic towards the petitioner and clarified that the petitioner had not been blacklisted by the department. The court did not address the issue of lack of opportunity for hearing before the circular's issuance, focusing instead on the non-stigmatic nature of the circular.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1341
The Madras High Court issued an order for interim stay in a case, directing petitioners to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed within four weeks to maintain the stay. The respondents were instructed not to dispose of seized gold and foreign currency pending further orders.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1340
Issues involved: The issue involved in this case is the deletion of disallowance of excessive payment of remuneration to dealers by the assessee, for assessment year 2006-07.
Issue 1 - Disallowance of Excessive Payment of Remuneration:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a balance payment of &8377; 89,98,913/- made by the assessee to its dealers, treating it as unreasonable and excessive, while restricting the claim of deduction of remuneration paid to dealers at 6% of total commission receipts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the AO to delete the addition, following the first appellate order for assessment year 2005-06.
Issue 2 - Error in Tribunal Order:
The Tribunal observed an error in its previous order where it stated that a decline in payment of remuneration was warranted due to the setting up of outlets, which was factually incorrect. The Tribunal acknowledged that the facts for the year under consideration were similar to those in assessment year 2005-06, and the observation regarding decline in payment was a mistake apparent from the record.
Issue 3 - Correction of Tribunal Order:
Upon realizing the errors in the previous order, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 30.11.2009. It substituted the relevant paragraphs to confirm the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance of excessive payment of remuneration to dealers, based on a similar Tribunal order for assessment year 2005-06. The Department's appeal was rejected, and the appeal of the Department was dismissed.
In summary, the Tribunal corrected its previous order regarding the disallowance of excessive payment of remuneration to dealers by the assessee for assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal acknowledged errors in its initial observations and confirmed the deletion of the disallowance based on the similarity of facts with assessment year 2005-06, ultimately dismissing the Department's appeal.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1339
Issues involved: Registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act and exemption under Section 10(23C) for the assessment year 2007-08.
Summary:
The petitioner, a registered trust running an Engineering College, applied for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The application was initially rejected due to technical grounds and failure to rectify defects. A review request was made, stating all required documents were submitted with reasons for delay. Despite this, further documents were requested, and the application remained pending. The petitioner faced a tax liability for the assessment year 2007-08 due to the rejection of exemption under Section 10(23C).
The respondents contended that the application was defective, and the petitioner indicated they were not pursuing registration under Section 12A as they were focused on exemption under Section 10(23C). The application was considered withdrawn and not pursued further.
The court noted that the petitioner's claim of the pending application for registration under Section 12A was not accurate. However, it was informed that registration under Section 12A had been granted for subsequent years. The court allowed the petitioner to reapply for registration for previous periods and challenge the dismissal of exemption under Section 10(23C) through appropriate proceedings.
Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the authority for registration under Section 12A for periods before 2010-11 and challenge the exemption dismissal under Section 10(23C). The authority was instructed to consider any new applications promptly and make decisions in accordance with the law.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1338
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of provision made towards ageing of inventory of work in progress and finished goods.
2. Disallowance of amount capitalized on account of foreign exchange fluctuation.
3. Disallowance of loss due to restatement/revaluation of debtors and creditors.
4. Disallowance of running and maintenance expenses and depreciation for personal usage.
Disallowed provision for ageing of inventory:
The Revenue appealed the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 28,45,951 made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, citing precedent where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The genuineness of the claim was upheld, and the addition was deleted.
Disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation amount:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,47,876 on account of foreign exchange fluctuation. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, as the issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous years. The liability was deemed notional, and depreciation was allowed based on previous tribunal decisions.
Loss due to restatement/revaluation of debtors and creditors:
The Revenue contested the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 2,61,469 due to restatement/revaluation of debtors and creditors. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, following a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, where such losses were considered as expenditure under section 37(1) of the IT Act.
Disallowance of running and maintenance expenses for personal usage:
The assessee objected to the disallowance of running and maintenance expenses and depreciation for personal usage. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and decided the issue in favor of the assessee, based on previous tribunal decisions in similar cases.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the assessee was allowed based on the Tribunal's decisions and precedents.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1337
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Bona fide administrative delay.
3. Prejudice to public exchequer.
4. Disciplinary action against erring officials.
Summary:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The petition was filed to condone a delay of 3081 days in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2001 in L.A.O.P. No.33/1997 by the III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai. The Sub-Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 250/- per cent to Rs. 2,500/- per cent. The delay was attributed to administrative issues, including the misplacement of the certified copy of the judgment and subsequent staff transfers.
2. Bona Fide Administrative Delay:
The petitioner claimed the delay was neither willful nor wanton but due to bona fide administrative delays. The delay was discovered during a review in December 2008, and a new copy of the judgment was obtained on 8.12.2008. The appeal was eventually filed on 4.3.2010.
3. Prejudice to Public Exchequer:
The learned Additional Advocate General argued that not condoning the delay would cause irreparable loss to the public exchequer, as the compensation amount was significantly increased by the Sub-Court. The petitioner initiated disciplinary action against the responsible officials. The court considered whether the delay would result in a loss to the public exchequer and noted that in connected cases, the compensation amount was reduced on appeal.
4. Disciplinary Action Against Erring Officials:
The petitioner identified 12 officers responsible for the delay, with four having retired. Proposals were sent to the Government to take action u/s 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and charges framed u/s 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973. The Housing Board was also asked to take action against four Executive Engineers.
Judgment:
The court acknowledged the inordinate delay but emphasized the need to protect the public exchequer. Citing precedents, the court held that the expression "sufficient cause" should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. The delay was condoned on the condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 13,500/- to the respondents within ten days, failing which the petition would be dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1336
Issues involved: Reassessment under Section 21 of the U P Trade Tax Act, 1948 for Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2004-05.
Facts: The petitioner traded in 'Banphool Oil' in the Assessment Year 2000-01 and in both 'Banphool Oil' and 'Arnica Oil' for subsequent years. Assessment orders were passed for these years, followed by reassessment proceedings initiated later. Approval was granted for reassessment for certain years, while for one year within the time limit, no approval was required.
Decision: The notices for reassessment were issued based on relevant decisions and cannot be invalidated. The petitioner's argument that the assessment for 2000-01 cannot be reopened was dismissed as the order indicated a tentative view and subsequent adverse information justified reassessment. The reassessment notice covering both 'Banphool Oil' and 'Arnica Oil' for later years was deemed legal. The approval for reassessment was considered valid even though not detailed, as it was not necessary for the approving authority to provide extensive reasoning.
Outcome: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer with a certified copy of the order. The time taken for this filing would be excluded from the limitation period for passing the reassessment order.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1335
Admissibility of credit on capital goods (power unit) which have been sold but not removed from premises - transactions of sale of power unit and simultaneous lease of premises are wisely resorted to by the assessee as a device to avoid the tax liability on it - said purchaser, after purchasing the power unit from the assessee, has been enjoying the same as its absolute owner and has been supplying to the assessee the power generated from the said power unit on payment basis.
............
|
9911796707
