|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 931 Records
-
2008 (8) TMI 948
The Bombay High Court upheld the tribunal's decision in the case of Phillips Carbon Black Ltd. v. Commissioner, Bolpur. The appeal was rejected as no question of law arose.
-
2008 (8) TMI 947
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without interference with the impugned judgment. Delay was condoned.
-
2008 (8) TMI 946
Maintainability of appeal - this appeal is restricted only to the findings recorded by the tribunal in relation to the provisions of Rule 209A and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules - Held that: - The findings of the tribunal is based on interpretation of the provisions and the stand taken by the revenue itself - there is no question of law arising in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 945
Issues involved: Stay applications against Order-in-Original finalizing assessment of imported goods, confirming duty, confiscating goods, imposing penalties.
Issue 1: Consideration of valid special import license for provisional assessment
The main importer argued that the adjudicating authority did not consider the valid special import license they had submitted for provisional assessment, which could have affected the confirmation of duty demand. The advocate for one of the applicants penalized for aiding and abetting importation of confiscated goods under Customs Act 1962, Section 112(a), highlighted that the appellant only introduced the license holder to the purchaser and received a commission, without dealing with the license directly.
The Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original did not address the valid special import license submitted by the main appellant for provisional assessment. Noting the lack of findings on this matter, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire order, as the alternate plea made by the main appellant was not considered. The Tribunal held that if the subsequently produced licenses were valid, the Commissioner could have assessed the goods against them, given that the imported goods were provisionally assessed. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, with a proper opportunity for the appellants to present their case.
The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
-
2008 (8) TMI 944
The High Court Bombay High Court ruled that the department cannot allow only 50% depreciation on assets, and the appellant's appeal was disposed of. The argument regarding Section 14A of the Act could not be raised as it was not argued before the tribunal.
-
2008 (8) TMI 943
Jurisdiction - Powers and jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate to deal with application u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act - Powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrates in non-metropolitan areas and in metropolitan areas - Doctrine of implied powers - constitutional validity of the section 14 - HELD THAT:- We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and others [2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT] upheld the validity of the provisions of the Securitisation Act except sub section 2 of section 17 which was declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the Act was amended by Amendment Act 30 of 2004 and requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount claimed was deleted. In view of the this, it is not possible for the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity of the section.
A reading of the statutory provisions would show that u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act, the Magistrate is only rendering assistance to the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets as provided u/s 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. After 60 days' notice as prescribed u/s 13(2), secured creditor can approach the Magistrate for taking possession of the land. Magistrate has no power to refuse the request, but, before taking action, he can verify whether 60 days' notice as prescribed u/s 13(2) was issued or not and whether secured asset is identifiable.
Powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrates in non-metropolitan areas and Chief Metropolitan Magistrates in metropolitan areas are one and the same. Here, in this case, there is no casus omissus also. Chief Judicial Magistrates in metropolitan areas are designated as Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and vice versa mutatis-mutandis by implication and by reference to the area of jurisdiction. Chief Judicial Magistrate in a non-metropolitan area stands in the same footing as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan area and, their designations are used synonymously to denote the authority depending upon where one is situated, in a metropolitan area or a non-metropolitan area and, therefore, we agree with the view of the learned single Judge that in non-metropolitan areas, apart from the District Magistrate, the powers can be exercised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate also. A similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in The Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited v. Kovai Foods and Beverages [2006 (12) TMI 544 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in ITO v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act.
Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., [1990 (8) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT], RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.[1996 (1) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT], CEO & Vice-Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board v. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu,[1996 (11) TMI 467 - SUPREME COURT], J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (8) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT], State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society [2003 (1) TMI 707 - SUPREME COURT], etc.
An overall reading of the section shows that the power of the Magistrate is to render assistance to the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. He can also appoint a Commissioner for identification of the secured assets and taking possession of the secured assets etc. and if there is any resistance, ask for police & assistance and take any effective steps to have possession of the secured assets taken over.
Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal, the writ petitions and the Crl. R.P.
-
2008 (8) TMI 942
Issues: Classification of betel nut pieces under Central Excise Tariff
Classification Issue:
The judgment addresses the classification of betel nut pieces under the Central Excise Tariff. The issue involves the manufacturing process of crushing betel nuts into small pieces and sweetening them with various ingredients. The Revenue sought to classify the product under a specific 8 Digit Heading, while the Tribunal relied on a previous judgment to reject the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the issue to be settled based on the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case. The Tribunal concluded that the issue is no longer open for debate and ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the stay applications and appeals with consequential relief.
Legal Heirs Impleadment Issue:
Additionally, the judgment addressed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to implead the legal heirs of the late Proprietor of M/s. Vinayaka Agencies. The application was allowed by the Tribunal.
Relevant Details:
The judgment was delivered by Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J), and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore. Shri Venkateswara Rao represented the Appellant, while Shri K. Sambi Reddi appeared as the Authorised Representative for the Respondent. The Tribunal considered the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CCE & C, Guntur v. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works and found that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee. The learned DR reiterated the department's submission but acknowledged the relevance of the Supreme Court judgment to the case. The Tribunal, based on the settled legal position, allowed the stay applications and appeals in favor of the assessee with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2008 (8) TMI 941
Issues: Alleged irregular availing of Cenvat credit under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; Penalty leviable for non-verification of details; Verification of documents produced by the appellant.
In this case, the appellants were alleged to have irregularly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,12,849 under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Department observed that the appellants had availed excess credit based on dealer invoices for 'Food Grade Hexane' from various suppliers. It was noted that invoices from one supplier were deemed improper for credit availing. The appellants contended that they provided all necessary documents but were not properly verified by the concerned officers, arguing against the denial of credit.
The appellant's counsel argued that since duty and interest were paid before the show cause notice, penalty imposition was unjustified. He emphasized that all required details were present in the documents, including manufacturer details and duty payment specifics, and any errors by suppliers should not be attributed to the appellants. The counsel sought the penalty's cancellation due to the lack of irregularities on the appellants' part.
On careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed submitted all relevant invoices displaying essential product details. These invoices, issued by reputable suppliers, contained comprehensive information necessary for verification. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not act deliberately to warrant penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-adjudication to verify the documents thoroughly. The Original Authority was directed to conduct a fresh assessment within four months, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles. The appellants were permitted to retrieve the original documents for verification purposes, and the appeal was allowed for remand.
This judgment addresses the issue of alleged irregular Cenvat credit availing, penalty imposition for non-verification of details, and the necessity for thorough document verification in tax matters, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements in tax assessments.
-
2008 (8) TMI 940
Issues: Duty liability under Compounded Levy Scheme for production of stainless steel articles alongside non-alloy steel.
In this case, the primary issue revolved around the duty liability of the appellant for producing stainless steel articles alongside non-alloy steel under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The appellant contended that they predominantly manufactured goods covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme, citing previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases. The appellant's advocate highlighted that the duty liability should be discharged under the Compounded Levy Scheme if the items covered by the scheme predominate over others, referencing specific Tribunal cases for support. The Tribunal noted that in the stay order, it was recorded that only a small quantity of stainless steel was produced compared to non-alloy steel, indicating predominance of goods under the Compounded Levy Scheme.
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and referred to previous Tribunal decisions, including Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh and Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. v. Commr. of C.E., Raigad. Based on the precedents and the predominant production of goods under the Compounded Levy Scheme by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the duty paid by the appellant for stainless steel under the Compounded Levy Scheme was appropriate. Consequently, the impugned order demanding duty under the normal scheme was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
The judgment, delivered by Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T), and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J), emphasized the importance of determining duty liability based on the predominance of goods covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme when assessing production involving multiple types of goods. The decision provided clarity on the duty payment requirements for cases where goods under different schemes are produced simultaneously, ensuring consistency in duty assessment and compliance with relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act.
-
2008 (8) TMI 939
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against Tribunal's decision deleting surcharge u/s 113 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision to delete the surcharge levied under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had accepted the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals). The main question raised was whether the levy of surcharge while computing tax demand is a debatable issue. The Assessing Officer had rectified the mistake of not charging the surcharge, which was challenged in the appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing various judgments and interpretations related to the issue. The Tribunal found that the non-charging of surcharge cannot be considered a mistake apparent on record and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers case. The Revenue argued citing the judgment in CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The High Court noted that the judgment in Suresh N. Gupta's case clarified the retrospective applicability of the amendment in Section 113 made in 2002. The Court concluded that the question of retrospective applicability was debatable at the time of the Tribunal's decision, and hence ruled against the Revenue, dismissing the appeal.
-
2008 (8) TMI 938
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment year 1995-96.
The High Court of Kerala heard an appeal by the Revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Kochi, in I.T.A.No.114/Coch/2002 for the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal had based its decisions on the dicta laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. The matter had been pending for nearly three years due to non-payment of court fees by the Revenue. The Court noted that if the appeal had been brought before them earlier, they would have upheld the Tribunal's reasoning as it followed the High Court's dicta. However, the Revenue pointed out that the High Court's view was not supported by the apex Court's decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521]. The Court held that if the Revenue believed the Tribunal's decision contradicted the law laid down by the apex Court, they should apply for a review or rectification of the order before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the appeal, granting the Revenue liberty to make the necessary application or review petition before the Tribunal for appropriate orders.
-
2008 (8) TMI 937
Issues involved: Reopening of assessment under s. 147 r/w s. 148 of the IT Act for asst. yr. 1991-92.
Summary:
Issue 1: Reopening of assessment under s. 147 r/w s. 148 of the IT Act
The assessee initially declared a total loss in the return of income for the relevant assessment year, which was later revised to a higher loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment and determined a different total loss. Subsequently, it was discovered that the assessee had paid interest but had advanced interest-free loans, leading to a disallowance of the interest paid. The AO then issued a notice under s. 148 for reopening the assessment, resulting in a reassessment with a different total income. The Tribunal reversed the reassessment order, stating that the reopening was not legal and was based on a change of opinion.
The Revenue contended that the AO had not applied his mind during the original assessment regarding the interest details, and thus, the reassessment was warranted under s. 147. However, the Tribunal found that all necessary details, including loans and advances, were already on record during the original assessment. The Tribunal concluded that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing relevant information, and the AO had considered all materials during the initial assessment. Since the notice for reopening was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the legality of the reassessment under s. 147 r/w s. 148 of the IT Act for the relevant assessment year.
-
2008 (8) TMI 936
Issues involved: Challenge to Ext.P11 and P12 orders regarding sales tax liability on property purchased, interpretation of Sections 26A and 26B of KGST Act.
In the judgment, the court addressed the challenge to Ext.P11 and P12 orders, which held the property purchased by the petitioners subject to sales tax liability u/s 26A of the KGST Act. The court noted that the original owner of the properties was in arrears of sales tax amounting to Rs. 12,38,443. The property was initially sold in a revenue auction, but the sale was revoked due to assessments being set aside and remanded in appeal proceedings. Subsequently, the properties were sold in court auctions and purchased by respondents 4 to 6, who then sold them to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that the properties were free from sales tax liability, and therefore, the court auctions and their subsequent purchase conferred valid title free of charge. The court considered the contentions raised by both parties and examined the application of Sections 26A and 26B of the KGST Act in this case.
The first contention raised was regarding the application of Section 26A and the timing of the enforcement of Section 26B. The petitioners argued that Section 26A did not apply, while respondents 1 to 3 contended that Section 26A was in force from 1.4.1993. The court provided the text of both Sections 26A and 26B for reference. The Government Pleader relied on a Division Bench judgment that held Section 26A applicable even if assessments were pending at the time of transfer, emphasizing that bonafide purchase for valid consideration was not a defense against Section 26A. The petitioners argued that the defaulter did not create any charge on the property, thus Section 26A was not applicable. However, the court observed that the property was subject to a charge created by decree, and the sale in execution proceedings by the civil court was akin to a sale by the judgment debtor, falling under the purview of Section 26A.
The court further analyzed the interplay between Sections 26A and 26B, noting that both provisions aimed to create a prior charge on the defaulter's property for recovering arrears of sales tax. It highlighted that the sale in execution proceedings, even if conducted by the civil court, would still be covered by Section 26A. Given that revised assessment proceedings were pending at the time of sale, the court deemed the sale to respondents 4 to 8 as void, making subsequent sales to the petitioners also void. Consequently, Ext.P11 and P12 orders were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioners were given the option to settle the defaulter's liability under an amnesty scheme, allowing them to retain the property upon settlement. The court directed the Tahsildar to sell the properties if the liability was not settled, with any excess amount recovered over arrears of sales tax to be given to the petitioners. The court emphasized that amnesty benefit should be granted to the petitioners for settling the defaulter's liability as per the provided directions.
-
2008 (8) TMI 935
Issues involved: Appeal filed beyond 90 days, delay in filing appeal, date of filing appeal, remand for decision on merits.
Appeal filed beyond 90 days: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was filed belatedly after 90 days, stating lack of power to condone any delay beyond that period. However, the appellants provided evidence that the appeal was sent within the limitation period via Certificate of Posting on 04.06.2005, following the Order-in-Original dated 26.04.2005. They also re-submitted the appeal papers to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office on 28.06.2005, with a seal affixed for receipt.
Delay in filing appeal: The Counsel explained that due to an error, the appeal papers were initially filed before the wrong office on 28.06.2005, instead of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s office, both located in the same building. The papers were later forwarded to the correct office, leading to the dismissal of the appeal after a hearing. The Counsel argued that the date of receipt by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office should be considered as the filing date, as the appeal was submitted within the time limit.
Date of filing appeal: Upon review, it was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the filing date on when his office received the papers from the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs office, rather than the initial submission date of 28.06.2005. Recognizing this discrepancy, the Tribunal determined that if the latter date is considered, the appeal was indeed filed within the required timeframe. As the case was not decided on its merits, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on the Principles of Natural Justice.
This judgment highlights the importance of procedural accuracy in filing appeals within specified timeframes and the need for fair consideration of submission dates to ensure justice is served.
-
2008 (8) TMI 934
Amount of compensation deposited in terms of Section 357 of the Code - Whether in a suit for recovery of money on a cheque issued by the defendant but dishonoured, the amount received by the plaintiff-creditor in a criminal proceeding should be adjusted? - HELD THAT:- We have noticed that whereas the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed on 15.12.2005, the suit was decreed by the civil court on 23.01.2006. Deposit of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- by the appellants in favour of the respondent herein, was directed by the Criminal Court. Such an order should have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. An appeal from a decree, furthermore, is a continuation of suit. The limitation of power on a civil court should also be borne in mind by the appellate court.
Evidently, a duty has been cast upon the civil courts to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation in terms of Section 357 of the Code. It is futile to urge that on the date on which the civil court passed the decree the appellants were not convicted. As noticed hereinbefore, the appeal is a continuation of the suit and in that view of the matter as the appellants had in total deposited a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/-, i.e., ₹ 2,10,000/- in the criminal proceeding and ₹ 1,90,000/- in the civil proceedings, out of which a sum of ₹ 3,09,000/- has been withdrawn by the respondent, the High Court was obligated to take the same into consideration. In other words, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the Code, a duty was cast upon the High Court to take into account the fact that a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- had already been paid by the appellants to the respondent. Concededly, both the proceedings were maintainable. Law recognizes the same. The Parliament must have the situation of this nature in mind while enacting Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 357 of the Code and Sub-section (5) thereof.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment should be modified and is directed to be modified accordingly. The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge is directed to take into consideration the amount of compensation deposited by the appellants in the criminal case and for the said purpose, the learned Trial Judge should draw up a fresh decree while correcting the decree in terms of the order of this Court. The learned Trial Judge shall, while preparing a fresh decree, take into consideration the various dates on which the diverse amounts had been deposited by the appellants and calculate the interest payable thereupon.
The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.
-
2008 (8) TMI 933
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Adjustment of unutilized Modvat credit from the closing stock.
3. Inclusion of Modvat credit in the valuation of opening stock.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition under Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue is whether the entire balance in the Modvat account should be added to the closing stock while applying Section 145A. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 29,39,872/- to the closing stock, representing unutilized Modvat credit. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that Section 145A mandates the inclusion of tax, duty, etc., in the valuation of purchases, sales, and inventories. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court decision in Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. but noted that it pertained to a period before Section 145A was enacted. The Tribunal agreed that Section 145A requires adjustments to include tax, duty, etc., but emphasized that the entire Modvat balance should not be added as it represents a personal account item on the asset side of the balance sheet.
2. Adjustment of unutilized Modvat credit from the closing stock:
The assessee argued that if unutilized Modvat credit is added to income, it should be the difference between opening and closing Modvat credit. The CIT(A) rejected this, stating that Section 145A, effective from 1.4.1999, requires the closing stock to include tax, duty, etc., without adjusting for unutilized Modvat credit from the previous year. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee follows the exclusive method of accounting, adjustments under Section 145A should be made, and any excise duty added to closing stock can be claimed as a deduction under Section 43B if paid before filing the return. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of compliance with Section 145A and Section 43B.
3. Inclusion of Modvat credit in the valuation of opening stock:
The assessee contended that adjustments under Section 145A should also apply to the opening stock. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., which held that adjustments must be made to both opening and closing stock to avoid double deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to adjust the opening stock as per Section 145A, ensuring that any tax, duty, etc., paid or incurred is included in the valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 145A overrides Section 145 and requires consistent adjustments to both opening and closing stock.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the assessee's compliance with Section 145A and Section 43B and to adjust the opening stock as per the provisions of Section 145A. The decision ensures that both opening and closing stock reflect the correct value, including any tax, duty, etc., paid or incurred.
-
2008 (8) TMI 932
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of deduction on account of Lease Equalization.
2. Allowability of bond issue expenses.
3. Addition on account of interest on funds raised through FRN 2003 for import of capital goods.
4. Addition to book profit under section 115JA for provision for bad and doubtful debts and diminution in value of investment.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowability of Deduction on Account of Lease Equalization:
The first issue pertains to whether the lease in question is a finance lease or an operating lease and the subsequent allowability of Lease Equalization as a deduction. The assessee argued that the lease is a finance lease as per the Guidance Note on Accounting for Leases issued by the ICAI. The Tribunal examined the facts in light of this guidance note and concluded that the lease is indeed a finance lease. The Tribunal found that the lease rental should be divided into finance income and capital recovery, with Lease Equalization ensuring that only finance income is credited to the Profit and Loss Account. The Tribunal accepted the method of accounting suggested by ICAI and allowed the deduction for Lease Equalization, stating that it ensures the correct finance income is reflected each year throughout the lease period.
2. Allowability of Bond Issue Expenses:
The second issue involved the allowability of bond issue expenses. The assessee claimed the entire expense in the year of issue, while the Assessing Officer allocated the expenses over the bond's seven-year period. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Khirani Chemicals Ltd., which allowed the deduction of the entire expense in the year of issue. The Tribunal followed this precedent and allowed the assessee's claim for bond issue expenses in the year of issue.
3. Addition on Account of Interest on Funds Raised through FRN 2003 for Import of Capital Goods:
The third issue was regarding the addition of interest on funds raised through FRN 2003 for the import of capital goods. The assessee did not press this ground as it was not permitted by the Committee on Disputes (COD). Consequently, this ground was rejected by the Tribunal.
4. Addition to Book Profit under Section 115JA for Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts and Diminution in Value of Investment:
The fourth issue concerned the addition to book profit under section 115JA for provisions for bad and doubtful debts and diminution in the value of investment. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of ACIT v. Eicher Ltd., which held that provisions for bad and doubtful debts do not represent liabilities that the assessee may be called upon to pay. The Tribunal extended this reasoning to provisions for diminution in the value of investment, concluding that such provisions cannot be added to book profit under section 115JA as they do not represent liabilities. The Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, allowing the provisions to be excluded from book profit calculations.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee on the issues of Lease Equalization and bond issue expenses, following established judicial precedents. The ground related to interest on funds raised through FRN 2003 was rejected as it was not pressed. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee on the issue of additions to book profit under section 115JA for provisions for bad and doubtful debts and diminution in value of investment. The appeals were partly allowed for assessment year 1997-98 and fully allowed for the remaining years.
-
2008 (8) TMI 931
Issues involved: Seizure of goods belonging to the petitioner, Allegation of mala fide intentions by respondents, Failure of respondent No.3 to act upon petitioner's representations.
Seizure of goods belonging to the petitioner: The petitioner's goods at a specific location were seized by respondent Nos.1 and 2, leading to financial loss. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the goods were seized with mala fide intentions to target another entity, M/s. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd., of which the petitioner is a director. The petitioner had made representations to respondent No.3, who failed to act upon them or provide a hearing, resulting in continued sealing of the goods.
Allegation of mala fide intentions by respondents: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended, through a counter affidavit, that the seized goods did not belong to the petitioner but to M/s. Navshakti Industries Pvt. Ltd. Despite this, the petitioner's counsel requested a direction for respondent No.3 to consider the representations and issue a speaking order. The court found that considering the petitioner's representation would not prejudice respondents No.1 and 2.
Failure of respondent No.3 to act upon petitioner's representations: Despite the absence of respondent No.3, the court directed that a notice be sent to the petitioner's address within two weeks, followed by a personal hearing and a speaking order on the representation within eight weeks. The petitioner was granted the liberty to take further legal steps if aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, ensuring due process in addressing the grievance.
-
2008 (8) TMI 930
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and confirmed by the Income tax appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1979-80. The main issue is whether the assessment order for the said year was barred by limitation under Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts of the case:
The respondent assessee purchased land which was initially treated as HUF property by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that it was personal property, not HUF. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals agreed with the assessee, holding the land as individual property. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued for the assessment year 1979-80, which the assessee claimed was barred by limitation. The Assessing Officer relied on Section 150(1) to proceed with the assessment.
Legal analysis:
The Court examined Section 150 of the Income Tax Act, which allows for assessment or reassessment based on orders passed in appeal or other proceedings. The Court noted that Section 150(2) specifies that such provisions do not apply if the assessment relates to a year where no action could have been taken due to time limitations. The Court emphasized that orders or directions can only be enforced against parties involved in the earlier proceedings, not against third parties. The Court rejected the argument that the word "person" should be liberally construed to include different entities, stating that assessments must be made against the relevant parties. The Court cited a Supreme Court judgment to support this interpretation.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, ruling that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. It was concluded that Section 150 of the Income Tax Act did not save the limitation for assessing the present assessee. Therefore, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
-
2008 (8) TMI 929
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the deduction u/s 10A from profits of eligible undertaking, set off of brought forward losses against current year profits, computation of deduction u/s 10A, and the influence of results from other units on the deduction eligibility.
Deduction u/s 10A:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -III, Bangalore, seeking the allowance of deduction u/s 10A from profits of the eligible undertaking without being influenced by the results of other units and business. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10A for the profits of the Software Division, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, setting off brought forward losses against current year profits. The contention was that deduction u/s 10A should not be influenced by losses from other units, as the eligible profits should be independent of current and previous business losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
Interpretation of Section 10A:
The stand of the assessee was that income eligible for deduction u/s 10A should not be part of the total income computation mechanism, and the profits for deduction should be specific to the particular year, unaffected by current or previous business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee argued that the benefits of Section 10A should be considered independent of revenue or losses from other undertakings owned by the assessee, citing precedents and instructions to support the claim.
Precedent and Application:
The assessee distinguished the case of M/s. Himatsingike Seide Ltd. from their own, emphasizing that they had two units, one being the STP Unit (Software Division) for which the deduction u/s 10A was claimed. The argument was that brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation from non-STPI Unit should not be deductible from the eligible profits of the STPI Unit. Precedents of similar cases were cited to support the claim that deduction should be allowable from the profits of the eligible undertaking without being influenced by the results of other units.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal referred to relevant sections and held that deduction u/s 10A should be allowed from the profits of the eligible undertaking without being influenced by the results of other units. The Tribunal emphasized that business losses of other units should not be set off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 10A. Following the same reasoning as in previous cases, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction from the profit and gains of the eligible undertaking uninfluenced by the results of other units.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10A from the profits of the eligible undertaking without being influenced by the results of other units. The judgment emphasized the independence of eligible profits for deduction purposes, irrespective of losses from other units, in line with the interpretation of relevant sections and precedents.
............
|
9911796707
