Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2014 2014 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 1238 Records

• 2014 (5) TMI 1019
  

  Demand of service tax - business auxiliary service - Held that:- With effect from 16-5-2008, Information Technology Service became taxable under the Finance Act. As per the definition of Information Technology Services provided under Section 65(53a) means any representation of instructions, data, sound or image, including source code and object code, recorded in a machine readable form, and capable of being manipulated or providing interactivity to a user, by means of a computer or an automatic data processing machine or any other device or equipment. We have gone through a copy of the agreement which is on record whereby the applicants are undertaking activity of system development and maintenance, computer operations and support, etc. In view of above, we prima facie find the merit in the contention of the applicant that the applicant is not providing business auxiliary service but in fact are providing Information Technology Service which has become taxable only with effect from 16-5-2008. In view of above, pre-deposit of the dues is waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1018
  

  Denial of refund claim - Notification No. 41/2007-S.T - port charges and on technical inspection - Held that:- assessee, who paid the Service Tax on the services availed in the course of export of goods, are entitled for refund claim of service tax paid if they had complied with the condition of the above said Notification. In this case on perusal of the record, I find that the appellant has fulfilled the condition of the Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., therefore, they are entitled for the refund claim - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1017
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - cenvat credit - input service - bus transport service - Held that:- in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) it is held that for providing transport service for taking the employees to the factory, Cenvat credit on the transport service is available to the assessee. However, I find that the activities involving social gathering, marriage, picnic and taking children to the school will not fall in the category of business activity. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 within four weeks and report compliance on 19-10-2012. On such compliance, there shall be stay of recovery in respect of balance amount during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted partly.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1016
  

  Whether any manufacturing activity of Horlicks is undertaken in Tamil Nadu – Concessional Levy of Tax – Interpretation of statute - Manufacturing activity - Under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - Whether the Horlicks by itself without packing is marketable or not - Whether Section 23 can be invoked in this case or not – Levy of Penalty - Held That:- There is no definition to as to the scope of the expression 'manufacture' in the Section - Hence, one can get assistance from the definition of "manufacture" as defined under Rule 3(h) of the Rules – Relying upon THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL DIVISION [2014 (4) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]- The said decision was in the context of purchase of polythene films for being used in packing milk and milk products - There, assessee purchased fresh milk; after pasteurising it, sold it as a pasteurised milk - In the context of such process done to the milk purchased, the question arose as to whether the assessee would be entitled to concessional levy on the purchase of polythene sheets - Referring to ASPINWALL AND CO. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2001 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] as well as to the definition of 'manufacturer' as contained in Rule 3(h), this Court held that the preparation or process of making goods for the purpose of trade would also be included within the meaning of 'manufacture' to qualify for concessional levy u/s 3(3) of the Act subject to condition in Section 3(3) of the Act.

  Thus, when the goods purchased is for the purpose of use in the preparation or a process of the goods for the purpose of trade, such preparation or process or making of the goods for the purpose of trade would also come within the meaning of 'manufacture' – There is no hesitation in holding that when the Horlicks at intermediate stage is brought from Rajahmundry to Chengalpattu Branch of the assessee Unit in Tamil Nadu, and subjected to several processes to make it a marketable commodity, the assessee can legally claim its activities in Tamil Nadu, as coming within the meaning of the term 'manufacture' - Given the nature of the product and the requirements to comply with the provisions of the Weights and Measurements Act with its name and the product code and other details with labels affixed on the bottle, the entire manufacturing process gets completed only when the goods are brought to such a marketable stage.

  Whether purchase of bottle caps and seals can be considered as component parts of Horlicks powder – Held That:- The purchase of labels and caps are integral to the manufacturing activity and for the purpose of trade – Relying upon HMM LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1994 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Screw cap shall be deemed to be a component part of Horlicks and hence, the assessee is entitled to the concessional excise levy, Revisions are allowed and so too the writ petitions - The order of the Tribunal levying penalty is set aside and the differential duty collected by reason of Section 3(3) of the Act is also deleted - The writ petitions are allowed. Whether Section 3(3) is available prior to the amendment of Section 3(3) for the packing materials or not – Concessional levy of Tax - Held That:- As far as Section 3(3), as it stood during the material point of time relating to assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93, is concerned, when a dealer purchases any goods, other than consumables for use in the manufacture of any goods for sale inside the State, the tax payable by a dealer in respect of such goods, other than the excluded items, would be 4% - Proviso to Section 3(3) enjoins on the assessee to produce a certificate in Form XVII to claim concessional levy - Based on this alone, the assessee would be entitled to claim concessional levy under Section 3(3).

  Concessional levy of Tax - Held That:- As far as the assessment year 1999-2000 is concerned, in contra distinction to the provisions of Section 3(3), which related to sale of any goods other than the consumables, the amended provisions referred to sale of any goods including the consumables, packing materials and labels other than capital goods, for the grant of concessional levy - As in the earlier provisions, the only requirement is that raw materials must be used in the manufacture and assembling and packing materials or packing or labelling in connection with the manufacture of goods, as mentioned in the First schedule for sale inside the State - Thus, going by the provisions, it is evident that the tax payable in respect of any goods including consumables, packing materials and labels, would qualify for concessional levy, so long as they are for the purpose and use in the manufacture of goods falling under the First Schedule and that the manufactured goods are to be available for sale inside the State.

  Bar of Limitation - For assessment order relating to the assessment year 1998-99, since the reassessment proceedings are time barred, no question arises before this Court for any consideration - Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1015
  

  CENVAT Credit - allegation of non receipt of goods physically - receipt of goods before the date of removal - Commissioner (appeals) dropped the demand and penalty - Held that:- respondents have not been able to answer as to how the goods removed by the Principal manufacturer reached destination on the date prior to the date of its removal - Further, it was also revealed during investigation as pointed out by ld. DR, that goods have been found transported by truck covering a distance of over 1400 Kms. in a single day from Nagothane to Parwanoo. Details are duly reflected in para 5 of the adjudication order. This is impossibility as no such transportation can take place. All these facts arouse suspicion and needs to be answered. Once impossibility creeps into results of investigation, result becomes unassailable pointing toward false transaction.

  Verification of the records maintained by the Excise & Taxation Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh at the Parwanoo Barrier also revealed that some of the consignments as detailed in Annexure ‘A’ have not entered the State of Himachal Pradesh through Parwanoo Check Post/Barrier as evident from the correspondences made with the Sales Tax Authorities of Parwanoo.

  Ground taken up by Commissioner (Appeals) to drop the demands and penalties has no legs to stand as fraud is clearly manifested. - Demand of duty and penalty confirmed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1014
  

  CENVAT Credit - Dispute relates in respect of Cenvat credit availed on imported aluminum scrap under the Bills of Entries inasmuch as duty was paid not in cash but was deposited in the DEPB - Held that:- Cenvat credit of duty in respect of imported inputs on which duty has been debited through DEPB cannot be denied in as far so w.e.f. 28.1.04. Para 4.3.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy has been amended where under duty debited through DEPB has been made admissible for Cenvat credit or for drawback claim w.e.f. 28.1.04. In the present case the Cenvat Credit denied to the Appellants pertain to the period April 2004 onwards i.e. after the amendment of Para 4.3.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy - no justifiable reasons to interfere in the same in the absence of any evidences supporting the revenue allegations, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the confirmation of demands against the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1013
  

  Duty demand - Shortage in stock - Assessee contends that since new ERP based Navision Software was installed for making entries, he was not aware of the discrepancy - Held that:- It is seen that the appellant had recently started using ERP Based Navision Software. The main Server of the same was located in the head Office at 54/38, Nayaganj, Kanpur. The main feature of this Software is that it is to be connected through Broadband Network and subsequently the entries in the records were then made at the Unnao Unit at the end of the day. But sometimes, due to problem in services of BSNL connectivity to the Server was not available and it resulted into delay in feeding entries/data in the Computer. That at the time when inspection was conducted by the Department, due to server problem, the broadband could not be connected to the main server and hence the days entry could not be updated in the system of the applicant. - appellant representative has accepted the shortages only but nowhere accepted the fact of removal of the same. On the other hand, there is plausible explanation of the same. As such, I find no reasons to the upheld the confirmed demand against them - Decided in favour assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1012
  

  Benefit of Cenvat credit of Service tax - Revenue denied credit that Services like Telephone Services, Xerox services, Courier services and Insurance services cannot be held as input services - Held that:- Telephone Services, Xerox Services, Courier Services and Insurance Services are eligible input services - even if the invoices were received at the Head Quarters and the Services were availed in the factory, the credit cannot be denied - However, demand is also barred by limitation period - Following decision of M/s. Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. CCE, Gwalior [2014 (2) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], M/s. Valco Industries Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 30 - CESTAT, New Delhi] - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1011
  

  CENVAT Credit - Storage loss - Held that:- total of the storage losses for the period from June 2007 to February 2009 comes to 2135 qtls., that it is this loss which had been reported to the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities as transit loss by mistake, while it is actually storage loss - since it is 0.45% of the total quantity received, the same is within the limit of 2% storage loss prescribed as condonable by the Board - Once it is treated as storage loss, the ratio of the judgment of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - II (2004 (5) TMI 486 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) would be applicable and the Cenvat credit in respect of such loss cannot be denied..

  In any case, even if it is treated as transit loss, since the same is 0.5%, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied in view of judgment in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - II [2010 (12) TMI 291 - CESTAT, DELHI] which is based on judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chennai vs. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT, CHENNAI (LB)]. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1010
  

  Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - mis-declaration of Present Market Value (PMV) and FOB value - claim of abnormally high DEPB credit - Right to get goods released on redemption fine payment - Held that:- appellant, as a matter of right, cannot claim release of the goods on payment of redemption fine and duty. Even though gold as such is not a prohibited item and can be imported, such import is subject to lot of restrictions including the necessity to declare the goods on arrival at the Customs Station and make payment of duty at the rate prescribed. There is no need for us in this case to consider the conditions on which import is permissible and whether the conditions are satisfied because the appellant attempted to smuggle out the goods by concealing the same in emergency light, mixie, grinder and car horns etc. and hence the goods so brought is prohibitory goods as there is clear violation of the statutory provisions for the normal import of gold. Further, as per the statement given by the appellant under Section 108 of the Act, he is only a carrier i.e. professional smuggler smuggling goods on behalf of others for consideration. Since the exporter realized the value declared as FOB value it has to be taken as correct

  This circular is silent on the manner in which PMV is to be ‘considered for the purpose of allowing credit’. Since the circular is a continuation of earlier circular it is reasonable to conclude that the consideration is to ensure that credit given does not exceed 50% of PMV as ascertained. At any rate this change is after the export of goods on 17-08-2000 and cannot be made applicable to this this case - In the process of re-determining the eligible DEPB credit the appellant seems to have suffered beyond what was prescribed under law - in the matter of issue of SCN, the procedure prescribed vide circular 79/98-Cus dated 22-10-98 as amended by Circular dated23/99-Cus dated 11-05-99 was not followed - confiscation of goods and redemption fine and penalty imposed is set aside - Decided partly in Favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1009
  

  Revocation of CHA License – Transfer of Licence – Recoded statement - Section 108 of Customs Act - Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 - Held that:- Appellant is one of 10 persons to whom the licence alleged to have been transferred - Thus, department could not establish that the provisions of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 were contravened - The appellant obtained valid and a proper authorization letters from their clients and that Regulation 13(a) of the CHALR, 2004 have been contravened is not established.

  Entire case of the department is based on the statements recorded u/s 108 - Admittedly the proceedings under CHALR, 2004 are in the nature of domestic Inquiry proceedings and evidence is required to be brought on record during the course of the Inquiry proceedings - The evidence given by witnesses clearly brings out the basic fact that the licence has not been transferred and that it was the employees of the appellant who have been attending to Customs clearance work in Custom house by filing the necessary documents, attending to assessment, examination and clearance of the goods - Evidence given by Shri Sagar Rakshe and Amit Pattani, during the Inquiry has not been taken into consideration only because the said evidences given by the witnesses of the department is against the charges framed by the department.

  Relying upon M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors [2006 (4) TMI 455 - SUPREME COURT] -Statement recorded vide Section 108 has been given some special status as to its acceptability in relation to proceedings under the Act but there no provision like the one found in Regulation 23(3), exist for the purpose of adjudication under the said Act - Notice u/s 124 has to be served which also includes the statements recorded u/s 108 and the other side has an option to ask for production of such persons for cross-examination - Both recording of evidence and offering the persons for cross-examination has been made mandatory under Regulation 23(4) - Non-examination of these two passengers and non-offering them for cross-examination to the delinquent, therefore, makes their statements recorded in other proceedings not admissible - There is also no allegation that these two passengers have been intentionally kept away by the appellant and only ground for non-examination mentioned is that they did not respond to the summons - It is true that there is no power in such authorities to enforce their attendance, but if their presence cannot be secured, their evidence has to be discarded and cannot be used in any manner - Any use of their statement would directly violate Regulation 23(4) - Impugned order is set aside – Decided in favour of appellant.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1008
  

  Winding up of company - Inability to pay debts - Gold ornaments made on order - But payment was not made fully - Held that:- respondent has admitted the debt. It is also an admitted position that the respondent Company is not a going concern and the respondent Company has lost its financial sub-stratum and has become commercially insolvent and is unable to pay its debts. In light of such admitted position therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. The respondent Company is hereby ordered to be wound up under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act. The Provisional Liquidator appointed by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2012 and 13.11.2013 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 182 of 2013 is hereby appointed as Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator shall take possession of all movable and immovable assets of the respondent Company and shall file its report within a period of three months - Decided in favour of appellant.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1007
  

  Violation of Section 6(A) of the DSPE Act, 1946 - offence falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The allegations as set out in the FIR were that a reliable source had informed that Hemant Gandhi is having close contacts with the Petitioner, Lallan Ojha and other officials of the Central Excise for obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen - Held that:- on 2nd January, 2012 transfer of bribe money had to take place though the exact time and place was not known, however it was contemplated shortly and thus the CBI was required to act with due dispatch and hence at that stage it could not have and was not required to comply with Section 6(A)(1) DSPE Act - After registration, verification may be entrusted to an officer other than who has submitted the SIR. As far as possible, the requisition of records/documents should be avoided during verification of SIRs. In case, it is absolutely necessary to do so, the requisition must go to the concerned Vigilance Officer under the signatures of the SP after obtaining permission from the DIG concerned. It must be ensured that no record/documents are requisitioned before the Competent Authority has passed orders for registration of an SIR.

  If a case is required to be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary and above or a Government appointee in the Central Public Sector Undertakings, prior permission of the Government should be taken before enquiry/investigation as required under Section 6A of the DSPE Act except the case under Section 7 of the PC Act wherein the registration is followed by immediate arrest of the accused. In case, involvement of another Government servant of the above-mentioned rank(s) is revealed during the course of investigation, a fresh permission as required under Section 6A of the DSPE Act, which should be obtained at the earliest. The permission so obtained should form an integral part of the FIR or the Case Diary, as the case may be.

  After the registration of FIR another source information was received that the money had been transacted and Rs. 3 lakhs was delivered to the driver of Lallan Ojha. Thus immediately a raid was conducted. The two co-accused Lallan Ojha and Hemant Gandhi were arrested and their disclosure statements recorded. From the car of Lallan Ojha Rs. 2,95,000/- and other incriminating documents were recovered. Raids were conducted at the house and office of the Petitioner. All these actions of the CBI fall within the ambit of investigation not only against co-accused Lallan Ojha and Hemant Gandhi but also against the Petitioner, as in a case of conspiracy the acts of co-accused committed in furtherance of the common object are attributable to the co-accused. Thus, to state that investigation qua the Petitioner started only after his arrest would be incorrect as all the acts performed by the CBI after the registration of FIR were part of investigation qua the Petitioner as well. Since investigation had already commenced against the Petitioner, Clause (d) of Guideline 13.9 of the CBI Crime Manual has no application to the facts of the present case. - Decided against Appellant.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1006
  

  Maintainability of writ petition - order of settlement commission - Non-disclosure of income – Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Commission found that since the petitioner had committed a default and did not truly disclose his income, the penalty could not be waived. - Held that:- Even if there is an error of law or fact in calculating the penalty, where the assessee volunteered to appear before the Settlement Commission for settlement of his matter, the discretion exercised by the Settlement Commission requires no interference unless the exercise of power made by the Settlement Commission was perverse requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution - The Writ Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution is not bound to interfere in its discretionary remedy even if there was an error of law or fact - Article 226 merely vest a discretion to the Court to interfere in exceptional cases and even if the impugned order was not in conformity with law, the Court was not bound to set aside the order - an order passed by the Settlement Commission attains finality u/s 245(i) of the Act - the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in the orders passed by the Settlement Commission – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1005
  

  Reassessment - Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act – Reason to believe – Held that:- Under Section 147 of the Act, proceedings initiated for re-assessment proceedings can only be done if the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe, namely, that any income chargeable to tax had escaped income in any assessment year - The assessee had disclosed the gift cheques in his return filed u/s 139 of the Act - no notice was issued to the petitioner u/s 143(2) of the Act by the AO and the returns were accepted by issuance of an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act – u/s 143 of the Act, it is the discretion of the AO to accept the return as it is or to proceed further with the assessment of income - once the AO decides to proceed, he has to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period, at the relevant moment of time, was 12 months to make the assessee aware that his return has been selected for scrutiny assessment.

  The material came into existence during post search enquiry when it became known that the gift cheques shown in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act were not regular transactions but were purely arranged transactions to avoid income tax - income disclosed in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act could not become "undisclosed income", merely because in post search enquiry, it came known that the gift cheques was a sham transaction - An amount which has already been included in the regular assessment cannot be assessed again in the course of block assessment - The gift cheques, having been disclosed in the return u/s 139 of the Act could not be re-assessed in block assessment proceedings u/s 158BC - The authorities were justified in not including the gift cheques in block assessment proceedings.

  The material found in post search enquiries could form a "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act - the period u/s 143(2) of the Act had expired, the AO having genuine reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and consequently, could issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act - Such notices so issued were perfectly justified and was within the powers of the Assessing Officer – Relying upon Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] - the expression "reason to believe" in Section 147 of the Act would mean cause of justification to know that income had escaped assessment - at the stage of issue of notice, the only question is, whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could form the requisite belief that income had escaped assessment - the AO was justified in forming an opinion, that income had escaped assessment and was justified in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act – thus, the notice u/s 148 of the Act is upheld – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1004
  

  Settlement commission - deduction u/s 80IB - Material placed by the CIT under Rule 9 not considered – Held that:- The contention of the revenue cannot be accepted that Settlement Commission had not examined and overlooked the material placed before the Settlement Commission in support of their contentions that the respondent was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB of the said Act - the new unit should not have been made by splitting up or reconstructing an already existing business - the new business should not have been formed by transfer if the plant or machinery which had been previously used for the purpose - Insofar as these conditions are concerned, there is no material to show that they have not been satisfied.

  There is evidence of the fact that the AO, in respect of the AY 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, has allowed the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act - The presumption is that an AO is aware of the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IB of the Act and that those conditions have been met - It is his duty to do so - the AO allowed the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act for the three AY- 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 - he had checked and verified that the conditions stipulated in Section 80-IB (2) had been satisfied - There is nothing on record to rebut this presumption - it cannot be contended that the conclusion arrived at by the Settlement Commission that the respondent was entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act was arbitrary or perverse – thus, there was no reason for interference in the order of the Settlement Commission – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1003
  

  Reassessment - Validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act – Held that:- Relying upon Associated Stone Industries V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur [1997 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court] - the information obtained by the Income Tax Officer need not be one outside the record; it may be one obtained from the assessment records already available - the facts which were revealed to the AO who carried out the assessment for A.Y. 2010 – 2011 was the 'information' as is contemplated by Section 147 of the Act leading the officer to form a belief that the income had escaped the assessment for the A.Y. 2006 – 2007 and 2008 – 2009.

  Whether the ‘information’ received to the AO is relating to A.Y. 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 – Held that:- On perusal of the reasons given by the respondents for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 2006 – 2007 and 2008 – 2009, it cannot be said that there was no information with the AO relating to the said assessment years - the information is received to the officer during the course of the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010 – 2011 – the information does not seem to be restricted only to A.Y. 2010 – 2011 - Material on record shows that petitioner company has debited the order procurement charges in the AY 2010 – 2011 and the deduction of the amount was claimed u/s 37(1) of the Act as business expenditure - The information received to the AO from the statement of Anil Asarkar is sufficient to draw a prima facie inference that Anil Asarkar (H.U.F.) might not have worked for the petitioner company and further that it was receiving the cheques from the petitioner company and giving them the cash back from the financial year 2006 – 2007 - the information which was received to the AO was sufficient for him to reasonably believe that the income had escaped assessment for the respective assessment years.

  The reasons recorded by the AO nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year - the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the AO - No substitution or deletion is permissible - No additions can be made to those reasons - No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded - the reasons were recorded before issuance of the impugned notices - no malafides seen in the delay caused in communicating the reasons - the facts revealed to the AO during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010 – 2011 is an ‘information’ contemplated by Section 147 of the Act - the information so revealed pertains to the assessment years to which the impugned notices relate - the information has direct nexus and/or live link with the tax liability for A.Y. year 2006 – 2007 and A.Y. 2008 – 2009 - the material in the hands of A.O. is prima facie sufficient for him to form a belief that income had escaped assessment of the assessment years to which the impugned notices relate and therefore, reassessment is needed - the issuance of notices is not an outcome of change in opinion of the successor AO but is based on tangible material received to him during the assessment proceedings of the subsequent year - The other two objections raised by the petitioner, first about the competence to issue the notice and the other that the action is beyond the period of limitation are kept open to be agitated before the appropriate authority – there was no fault with the notices – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1002
  

  Addition of unexplained jewellery – Proper explanation made or not – Held that:- The jewellery which has been found in possession of the family members is in accordance with customs and practice prevalent in the community and in accordance with status of the family - the Tribunal was rightly of the view that the Central Board of Direct Taxes keeping in view the status of the family, customs and practice of the community, came down with the circular and one has to go with the weight and not with the value as the value may fluctuate over the years - the marriage of three sons were performed in the year 1996, 2000 and 2003 and all the marriages including the assessee and three sons were performed prior to 2003 - the statement of various family members were recorded and none has stated that these are not personal wearing jewellery and same were received by the respective ladies/daughter-in-law on/or at the time of their marriages either from the parental side or in-laws side and even subsequently at the time of birth of their children - Looking to the status of the family and the jewellery found in possesssion of four ladies, was held to be reasonable and the authorized officers, in the first instance, did not seize the jewellery as it was being within the tolerable limit or the limits prescribed by the Board - the Tribunal has correctly analyzed the Circular of the Board and there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1001
  

  Jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act – Held that:- After enquiry conducted by the CIT, he has recorded a bald statement that he was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee - During the revisional proceedings the assessee has brought to the notice of the CIT, that the issue was inquired into by the AO and it has filed the said reply before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, so the reply submitted to the AO must have been part of the assessment records - the AO had conducted enquiry into this issue - it is not a case wherein, no enquiry whatsoever was carried out by the Assessing Officer - in the original assessment order there is no mention of this claim at all.

  The CIT after examining the agreements and the explanations furnished before him ought to have recorded reason to demonstrate that the view taken by the AO is incorrect, and unsustainable in law and consequently ought to have recorded a finding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - CIT did not record any reason to hold that the implied view of the AO is unsustainable in law and therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which exercise has not been found to have taken place - the order of the CIT without recording the reason to demonstrate that the view of the AO after enquiry as incorrect, unsustainable in law and consequently ought to have recorded a finding that the implied view of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, which is absent in the order and therefore vitiates the revisional order – thus, the order of the CIT is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (5) TMI 1000
  

  Amendments made to Section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010 - Retrospective effect or Prospective effect - Deletion made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act – Existence of contract/sub-contract between assessee and the payee – Obligation to deduct TDS – Held that:- The TDS deducted for the period April 2008 to February 2009 was deposited before the due date of filing of return u/s 139 (1) of the Act – there was no infirmity in the order – Following CIT vs. Naresh Kumar [2013 (9) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - the amendment made to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2010 should be given retrospective effect.

  Excess depreciation on vehicles – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly was of the view that the Principle laid down in the circular and judicial precedents clearly reiterates intention of legislature to allow benefit of higher depreciation to the persons involved in the business of running motor cars, motor lorries etc. on hire as well as using these vehicle for transporting goods on hire - The word ‘hired’ used by statute was only to indicate that some income should be rendered to taxation by utilization of those assets in fact tippers/trucks were used in appellant’s business of transportation and income from such activity was duly included in business income as appellant had entered into a composite contract - The Tax Auditor has duly certified depreciation claim - the facts are not in dispute in as much as that the assessee entered into a transportation contract with M/s East India Minerals Ltd. for transportation of Iron ore etc. from crusher stockpile to railway sidings which has not been assailed by the revenue by way of any argument on fact or any evidence led to show that a fact has been wrongly taken into consideration, in the absence of the same, the commercial heavy goods vehicles belonging to the assessee have been used for hire for transporting the goods from one place to the other - Considering the Circular No. 652 dated 14/6/1993, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 62