|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1817 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1640
Addition on account of interest received from the Head Office - Held that:- The interest received by the Indian branch of a foreign bank from its Head Office, therefore, did not give rise to any income which was taxable in India since one could not make profit out of himself.
Claim for deduction of bad debts - Held that:- This issue now stands squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited vs. CIT (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein it has been held that as per the amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii), it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable and it is enough to claim deduction under the said provision if the relevant debt is written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in its books of account. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. (supra), we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of bad debts written off
Disallowance of transaction charges on Nostro account u/s 40(a)(i) - Held that:- Transaction charges paid on Nostro Account were in the nature of bank charges for maintaining the accounts with banks outside India. These charges were recovered directly by way of debits to the concerned accounts of the assessee with these banks and the same represented business income of those banks which accrued/arisen outside India. As held by the Tribunal, no tax therefore was required to be deducted at source from the transaction charges paid on Nostro account and the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act was not sustainable. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal on the similar issue involved in earlier years, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of transaction charges u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act
Traveling expenses incurred by the Head Office on traveling of its own staff and directly in connection with India branch are allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act and section 44-C has no application to such expenses
-
2013 (11) TMI 1639
Disallowance to be made u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- For invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act, AO should indicate ‘cogent reasons’ for holding the view that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. We find that AO had not mentioned as how and why he was not satisfied with the claim made by the asseessee. While confirming the order of the AO,FAA has also ignored this vital factor. In taxation matters, recording of satisfaction is a pre-condition for invoking certain provisions e.g. section 132 or section 148. AO has not recorded any reason as to why he was not satisfied with the explanation filed by the assessee.
Mere mentioning that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee, is not sufficient. He has to mention the reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee in no uncertain terms. Therefore, we are not able to endorse the views of the AO that were confirmed by the FAA. In our opinion, considering the facts of the case under consideration, further verification is required. Therefore in the interest of justice we are remitting back the matter to the file of the AO. He is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Effective ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in its favour, in part.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1638
Working out capital gain on sale of shares of BSE - whether WDV of BSE Card in the books of accounts of assessee or original cost of acquisition of BSE Card is to be considered towards cost of shares allotted to the members? - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee availed depreciation on the BSE card till BSE was corporatized and accordingly WDV of the BSE card is the cost of membership in the books of accounts of the assessee has to be treated as cost of acquisition towards 10000 shares; were allotted to assessee at the rate of ₹ 1 per share. Hence, we are of the considered view that LTCG in respect of shares has to be considered after assigning the WDV of BSE card to the cost of 10000 shares allotted to the assessee. It is ascertained that the assessee in the assessment year under consideration has sold 9123 shares. Therefore, proportionate cost of WDV of BSE card has to be assigned to the said shares while computing the LTCG. We are of the considered view that the AO has rightly computed LTCG by considering the cost of shares taking into account the WDV of the stock exchange card.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1637
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act by applying Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai pertains to an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-33, Mumbai for the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issue raised in the appeal was the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee, a trader in shares and securities, had claimed dividend income as exempt. The Assessing Officer, relying on relevant legal precedents, computed the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate the absence of expenses directly linked to the dividend income earned.
The assessee contended that the Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee in a similar case, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in support. The Ld. Departmental Representative, however, supported the lower authorities' orders. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that a previous decision favored the assessee based on similar facts and legal interpretations. The Tribunal highlighted the findings of the previous case and concluded that the disallowance under section 14A should be deleted in the present case as well.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, reversing the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made under section 14A of the Act. The Tribunal held that as ground No. 1 was decided in favor of the assessee, the alternative plea raised in ground No. 2 was rendered moot. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee, and the order was pronounced in open court on 20th November 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1636
Issues involved: Revenue's challenge to the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III, Pune regarding deduction claimed u/s. 10A for STPI units for A.Y. 2004-05.
Summary:
1. The Revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of deduction u/s. 10A for STPI units due to discrepancies in the claim and books results.
2. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim without giving an opportunity to the department, despite confirming disallowance in a similar case u/s. 10A.
3. The Revenue sought to vacate the CIT(A)'s order and restore that of the AO.
The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10A for STP units in Pune and Chennai for A.Y. 2004-05, which the AO rejected, citing discrepancies in the books of account. The AO estimated business profits for the STP units based on industry standards, disallowing a portion of the claimed deduction. The AO's approach was influenced by past assessments and comparisons with other companies.
The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's approach, allowing the entire claim and deleting the addition. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the ITAT Pune, which found no independent defects in the assessee's books of account for A.Y. 2004-05. The ITAT held that the AO's reliance on past assessments was unfounded and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Revenue's contention that no opportunity was given to the Department was dismissed by the ITAT, emphasizing the independence of each accounting year. Ultimately, all grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.
The ITAT Pune pronounced the judgment on 13-11-2013, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision in favor of the assessee.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1635
Deduction Sec.54 - Held that:- The said apartments for a period of more than thirty-six months and the sale proceed out of its sale consideration were in the nature of LTCG and were invested for purchasing the new house property for residential purpose within a period of one year from the date of sale of property. Hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction Sec.54 of the Act. But in the present case, whether the assessee has invested the LTCG arising out of sale of these apartments in the new residential house or not, has not been examined by the AO, these need examination, factually. Hence, for factual examination, we set aside this issue to the file of AO.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1634
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expense
2. Disallowance of depreciation allowance
3. Calculation of book profit under section 115JB
4. Charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expense
The appellant challenged the disallowance of interest expense amounting to Rs. 52,80,810. The Tribunal noted similar issues in other cases involving Sh. Hitesh S. Mehta and Pratima H. Mehta, where the matter was remitted back to the FAA for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the FAA, allowing the ground in part in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Depreciation Allowance
The appellant contested the disallowance of depreciation allowance totaling Rs. 67,748. A previous case involving Aatur Holdings Pvt. Ltd. saw a similar issue being remitted back to the FAA by a Bench of ITAT, Mumbai. Following this decision, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the FAA, partially allowing the ground in favor of the assessee.
Issue 3: Calculation of Book Profit under Section 115JB
The appellant raised concerns regarding the calculation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Referring to a previous case involving Aatur Holdings Pvt. Ltd., where a similar issue was remitted back to the FAA, the Tribunal followed suit and remitted the matter back to the FAA, partially allowing the ground in favor of the assessee.
Issue 4: Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C
The appellant disputed the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. Citing cases related to the Harshad Mehta Group, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the FAA based on precedents set in cases like M/s. Orient Travel Pvt. Ltd. and others. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed this ground in part in favor of the assessee. Overall, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the Tribunal, with the orders pronounced on 6th November 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1633
Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- The objective satisfaction of the AO as to the correctness of the assessee's claim was not recorded in the instant case. However, even if Rule 8D cannot be applied, the AO is obliged to ascertain the expenditure which had been incurred to earn the tax-free income. He must adopt a reasonable basis consistent with the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant's dividend income during the year is ₹ 3,33,320/- and appellant estimated an expenditure of 2% of dividend income as related to exempt income and disallowed an amount of ₹ 6,666/- in the computation of total income. The expenditure estimated by the appellant appears to be highly inadequate. Appellant has to incur various direct and indirect expenses in as much as the efforts of the employees go in tracking the mutual fund and other investments, purchase and sale of mutual funds and other assets, deposit of the dividend warrants, portfolio management etc. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial precedents discussed in preceding paras, a sum of ₹ 50,000/- is considered as reasonable expenditure to earn the exempt income. Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 50,000/-. This ground is partly allowed
-
2013 (11) TMI 1632
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt income u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of extra depreciation on computer peripherals/accessories.
3. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of interest attributable to interest-free loan granted to sister concerns.
Summary:
1. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt income u/s 14A read with Rule 8D:
The assessee company, engaged in media and media services, claimed dividend income of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 14A and applied Rule 8D, disallowing Rs. 7,14,928/- as expenses attributable to earning the exempt income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITO Vs Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies only from the assessment year 2008-09, as established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT. The matter was remanded to the AO to follow the steps outlined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
2. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of extra depreciation on computer peripherals/accessories:
The assessee claimed depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals/accessories. The AO restricted the depreciation to 15%, disallowing Rs. 37,141/-. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation at 60%, following decisions of the Calcutta and Delhi Benches of the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing that computer peripherals like printers and scanners are integral parts of a computer system and eligible for 60% depreciation, as established in Container Corporation of India Vs. ACIT.
3. Deletion of addition on account of disallowance of interest attributable to interest-free loan granted to sister concerns:
The assessee granted interest-free loans to sister concerns, and the AO disallowed Rs. 4,05,202/- as interest attributable to these loans. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had sufficient own funds and profits to cover the interest-free loans, as established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and the presumption that investments in sister concerns were made out of these funds.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1631
Issues involved:
The writ petitioner challenges the failure of the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order within the statutory period despite an application being made. The dispute arises from the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, without issuing a speaking order as required by sub-section 5 of the same Act within fifteen days.
Issue 1: Failure to pass speaking order within statutory period
The petitioner contends that the Assessing Officer did not fulfill the statutory duty of passing a speaking order despite the application made within the stipulated time frame. The respondent authorities argue that the application was submitted beyond the fifteen-day limit from the reassessment date.
Issue 2: Interpretation of statutory duty
The Court interprets the statutory duty under sub-section 5 of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, as a responsibility imposed on the Assessing Officer to issue a speaking order within fifteen days of reassessment, irrespective of whether an application is made by the importer or exporter. The judgment cites a previous Division Bench decision to support this interpretation.
Issue 3: Exception for acceptance in writing
An exception is noted in the statute where the Assessing Officer is not required to pass a speaking order if the importer or exporter confirms their acceptance of the reassessment in writing. The respondent argues that depositing the reassessed duty implies acceptance, but the Court emphasizes that the confirmation must be explicitly "in writing" to be valid, as intended by the legislature.
Judgment:
The Court rules in favor of the petitioner, directing the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order within fifteen days of the order's communication and to notify the petitioner within a week thereafter. The judgment clarifies that this directive does not imply any decision on the reassessment's merits, allowing the Assessing Officer to act independently. No costs are awarded in the disposal of the writ petition.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1630
Assessment u/s 153C - Held that:- As the facts emerge the assessing officer while framing the assessment u/s 153C and making these additions has not relied on any incriminating material. We find merit in the argument of ld. Counsel that the very same additions are made u/s 143(3) which is subject matter of appeal pending before ITAT. Therefore, the same additions cannot be made u/s 153C.
No addition can be made without any incriminating evidence in an assessment u/s 153C.The issues which are pending before ITAT and are subject matter of its jurisdiction cannot be added u/s 153C assessment in view of proviso to Sec. 153A. - Thus addition deleted
-
2013 (11) TMI 1629
Issues involved: Appeal against order disallowing credit availed by the respondent u/s central excise registration for manufacture of excisable goods, and imposition of interest but no penalty.
The judgment addresses the issue of whether interest is attracted when wrongly availed credit remains unused. The respondents had obtained central excise registration for manufacturing excisable goods but had not installed necessary machinery. Instead, they installed a biomass power plant and availed Cenvat credit on items used in the plant. Three show cause notices were issued for recovery of credit availed. The lower authority disallowed the credit and ordered interest recovery but no penalty. The respondents reversed the credit but contested interest imposition since it was not utilized. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing Tribunal decisions that no interest is confirmed if wrongly availed credit remains unused.
The judgment refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF India Ltd., which was considered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. The courts held that if the credit availed is reversed before utilization, no interest liability arises. Following this precedent, it was held that the respondents are not liable to pay any interest. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1628
Issues:
1. Admissibility of additional grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A).
2. Validity of notice issued under section 148 by the Assessing Officer.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Admissibility of Additional Grounds
The assessee raised additional grounds before the CIT(A) challenging the re-opening of assessment under section 147. The CIT(A) held that the additional grounds were not admissible as the assessee failed to provide good reasons for not including them in the original appeal memo. The CIT(A) further stated that even if the grounds were entertainable, they lacked merit and were to be dismissed. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer (AO) had valid reasons for re-opening the assessment, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and the Madras High Court's decision in ITO Vs. K.M. Pachiappan. Consequently, the CIT(A) rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee.
Issue 2: Validity of Notice under Section 148
The assessee appealed to the Tribunal challenging the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 by the AO. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. The assessee's counsel contended that there was no tangible material available to support the re-opening of the assessment. The counsel relied on various judgments to support this claim. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (D.R.) referred to the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the issue of tangible material for re-opening assessments was discussed. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of tangible material to support the belief of income escaping assessment. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of tangible material, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings due to the lack of tangible material supporting the re-opening of the assessment.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1627
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of criminal proceedings against accused individuals under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120(b) IPC, based on petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against accused individuals based on the grounds that the dispute between the Bank and the accused was of a civil nature, the company involved in the alleged fraudulent operations was not accused, and the bank had remedies for recovering the money through DRT or civil proceedings.
Issue 2: Bank's Arguments
The appellant argued that permitting overdraft facility to customers should not equate to simple civil contracts, and criminal proceedings should be allowed if a customer commits fraud. Citing a previous case, it was emphasized that criminal proceedings can be initiated to prevent abuse of the court's process and secure justice.
Issue 3: Legal Precedents
Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that criminal proceedings can continue even if there is a civil dispute, and settling a monetary claim voluntarily does not warrant quashing of criminal proceedings unless specific criteria under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are met.
Issue 4: Court's Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, as the allegations likely made out a criminal offense against the accused respondents. The Court emphasized that the previous failures of the accused to obtain relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the order to conclude the trial within a limited time were significant factors in their decision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1626
Grants of stay - Held that:- Quantum appeal could not be heard in this case for the reasons not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for further extension of time. Accordingly, we allow the Stay Application filed by the assessee and grant stay for a period of six months or the completion of hearing of the appeal whichever is earlier.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1625
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty u/s Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Issue 1: Remission application and rejection
The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of Readymade Garments, filed a remission application u/r 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 after a fire incident destroyed finished goods. The jurisdictional Commissioner rejected the remission application, leading to confirmation of duty demands. The applicant argued that the rejection and duty recovery are separate proceedings, despite arising from the same fire incident. The applicant expressed financial hardship due to heavy losses post-fire.
Issue 2: Arguments and findings
The Revenue contended that the rejection of the remission application binds the applicant, as no appeal was filed against it. The Tribunal noted the fire incident, the rejection of remission, and subsequent duty confirmation. Since no appeal was made against the remission rejection, the Tribunal found the confirmation of demand valid. Considering financial hardship, legal principles, and revenue interests, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit 25% of the confirmed excise duty within eight weeks to stay recovery during the appeal.
This judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures, the consequences of not appealing adverse decisions, and the balance between financial hardship and revenue interests in excise duty matters.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1624
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, determination of assessable value under Central Excise Valuation Rules, invocation of extended period of limitation, financial hardship of the unit.
Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty:
The applicants filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on them, based on the impugned Order-in-Original passed in pursuance of a remand order. The contention was that the assessable value should be determined under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA, 1944, as there was no mutuality of interest among the inter-connected units. It was argued that the value should be based on the transaction value charged to independent buyers, not under the valuation rules. The applicants also cited financial hardship due to being under BIFR.
Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The Special Counsel for Revenue highlighted that this was the third round before the Tribunal, with previous remand orders directing a fresh decision based on verification reports. The Commissioner found no sale to independent buyers during the relevant period, leading to a reduced duty demand. It was argued that as no appeal was filed against the previous remand orders, the findings had attained finality, and the applicants could not introduce new arguments at this stage.
Determination of Assessable Value:
The Tribunal noted that the cost construction method was applied only when evidence of sale to independent buyers was lacking. The applicants failed to provide contrary evidence on this issue. Previous remand orders had considered all legal issues raised by the applicants, and as those orders were not challenged, they had finality. The Tribunal held that raising new issues in the third round of litigation would be beyond the scope of the remand orders. Consequently, the applicants were directed to deposit 25% of the dues adjudged against each appeal within eight weeks, with the remaining dues waived and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.
Financial Hardship of the Unit:
Considering the financial hardship expressed by the applicants, the Tribunal balanced the interests of Revenue with settled legal principles, directing the deposit of a portion of the dues while waiving the remaining amount and staying recovery during the appeal process.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1623
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications/circulars prohibiting DTA clearances of marble by EOUs.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Hindustan Granites.
3. Interpretation of FTP provisions concerning DTA sales and supplies.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Notifications/Circulars Prohibiting DTA Clearances of Marble by EOUs
The petitioner, an EOU engaged in manufacturing marble products, challenged the notifications/circulars dated 2-6-2008, 26-3-2009, and 7-5-2012, which prohibited DTA clearances of marble under Paragraph 6.9(b) of the FTP 2004-2009 and 2009-2014. The petitioner argued that these prohibitions were arbitrary, unjust, and discriminatory, and contrary to the objectives of the FTP to boost foreign exchange earnings. The respondents contended that the restrictions were necessary to protect the domestic industry and prevent the misuse of imported marble for DTA sales.
Issue 2: Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in M/s. Hindustan Granites
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Hindustan Granites, which upheld the prohibition of DTA sales of marble under Paragraph 6.8, did not apply to supplies under Paragraph 6.9(b). The respondents maintained that the decision was relevant and that both provisions aimed to regulate DTA sales of marble by EOUs.
Issue 3: Interpretation of FTP Provisions Concerning DTA Sales and Supplies
The court examined the relevant provisions of the FTP and the Act, noting that the Central Government had the authority to amend the FTP in public interest. Paragraph 6.8 dealt with DTA sales of finished products, while Paragraph 6.9 addressed supplies in DTA against foreign exchange remittances. The court found that both provisions involved an element of sale and could be regulated by the Central Government. The court also noted that the impugned notifications/circulars were based on relevant considerations, including the protection of the domestic industry and prevention of misuse of imported marble.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned notifications/circulars were valid and within the authority of the Central Government. The court found no merit in the petitioner's challenges and vacated the interim orders.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1622
Issues involved:
The appeal by the revenue challenging the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Condonation of Delay Issue:
The assessee-respondents filed a refund claim on Central Excise Duty for certain months of the year 2005 and 2006 under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. The revenue challenged the order-in-appeal before the CESTAT, claiming the appeal was filed within the period of limitation of 90 days provided by Section 35B(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found deficiencies in the applications seeking condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a proper affidavit as per Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal held that the affidavit did not verify the facts based on knowledge derived from the record or personal knowledge, thus failing to satisfy the requirements of a proper affidavit. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion, to be exercised judiciously with sufficient cause for delay. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay.
Judgment and Decision:
The High Court acknowledged the liberal approach towards condonation of delay in law. While recognizing the revenue's initial lack of knowledge and procedural lapses, the Court opined that the Tribunal should have permitted the filing of a proper affidavit after allowing the application seeking condonation of delay. The Court noted the casual approach of the Revenue but also considered the issue could be decided on merit involving revenue. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, burdening the Revenue with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the assessee before further proceedings. The Revenue was directed to file a proper affidavit within six weeks as per the requirement of the law. The Court emphasized the importance of a proper affidavit, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India and Anr. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1621
Deduction u/s 80HHC - Held that:- Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states that the issues raised in these petitions for our consideration are identical with the issues raised and considered by this Court in the case of Madhur Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II [2013 (7) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held where the export turnover of an assessee exceeds ₹ 10 crores, he does not get the benefit of addition of ninety per cent of export incentive under clause (iiid) of Section 28 to his export profits, but he gets a higher figure of profits of the business, which ultimately results in computation of a bigger export profit
............
|
9911796707
