|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 1861 Records
-
2018 (6) TMI 1543
Income from letting of the assessee's commercial property – Business income or income from house property - Held that:- A Division Bench of this Court in M/S. KEYARAM HOTELS P. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2014 (11) TMI 633 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and thus dismissed the appeal. A special leave petition was filed as against the order of the Division Bench, which was also dismissed as reported in [2015 (12) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as held where the owner of the property exploited the property by leasing out the same and realised income by way of rent, the same was to be assessed under the head "Income from house property" and not as "business income" – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – decided against assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1542
Income from capital gain - Enhancement of income - Transfer of ancestral property - JDA - hypothetical income - assessee has entered into an agreement to sell the property during the year and has received part payment and has also given part possession - Co-ownership - assessee had 30% share in the ancestral property - cancellation of agreement - Held that:- We do not find any force in the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) because in our understanding of law qua the facts in issues, provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act the r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 are not applicable because this issue is now well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini CS Atwal [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein held a reading of the JDA in the present case would show that the owner continues to be the owner throughout the agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer rights akin to ownership to the developer. At the highest, possession alone is given under the agreement, and that too for a specific purpose -the purpose being to develop the property, as envisaged by all the parties. We are, therefore, of the view that this clause will also not rope in the present transaction.
The income from capital gain on a transaction which never materialized is, at best, a hypothetical income. It is admitted that, for want of permissions, the entire transaction of development envisaged in the JDA fell through. In point of fact, income did not result at all for the aforesaid reason. This being the case, it is clear that there is no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. This being the case, in the circumstances, there was no debt owed to the assessee by the developers and therefore, the assessees have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. This being so, no profits or gains “arose” from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1541
Disallowance of Interest in respect of advances to companies/other concern - addition being estimated interest @ 15% to various parties - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal consistently set aside the issue to follow the precedent laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT]. On same reasoning, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO. This issue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Addition of valuation of closing of finished goods - Held that:- This issue has to be allowed in favour of assessee by giving direction in regard to alternative claim that the addition to closing stock of finished goods made by the AO should be given consequential effect to the opening stock of next year also.
Taxing interest on Government securities - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal has consistently confirmed the orders of the lower authorities in bringing the interest on Government securities, respectfully following the same, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
Inclusion import duty to the income of the assessee - Held that:- As the facts circumstances are exactly identical in this year, respectfully following the Tribunal’s order in earlier years, we direct the AO to exclude the import duty entitlements from the total income of the assessee. This issue of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed.
Disallowance on Pooja expenses - Held that:- Tribunal in the assessee's own the A.Y. 1997-98 and 2003-04 has decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee.
Disallowing the claim of payment made to relatives of deceased employees - Held that:- Respectfully following the Tribunal’s order in earlier years, we direct the AO to allow the claim of payment made to relatives of deceased employees. This issue of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed.
Disallowing expenses relatable to exempt income - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal in earlier years also remanded the matter back to the file of the AO with directions to decide a reasonable disallowance by following the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we also direct the AO to decide the issue in terms of the directions of Tribunal in 1999-2000. Accordingly, this issue is remanded back to the file of the AO.
Not excluding the CFC grant received in pursuant to the Montreal Protocol for phasing out production of refrigerant gases - Held that:- Grant received by the assessee from Multilateral Fund set up under Montreal Protocol signed by various countries to protect environment is in public interest to protect environment from Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) and this grant has nothing to do with setting up of industry or its economics or profitability and hence this is capital receipt not liable to tax in India. Accordingly, we allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1540
Depreciation on Goodwill / Non-Compete Fee - right acquired by the assessee as held to be non compete right - Held that:- Issue as decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 [2017 (2) TMI 1117 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of Ingersol Rand International Ind Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 934 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] after duly considering the decision in the case of Sharp Business Systems [2012 (11) TMI 324 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Thus held this right acquired by the assessee can be transferred to any other person in the sense that the assessee acquirer gets the right to enforce the performance of the terms of agreement under which the seller is restrained from competing. Therefore, we hold that even if the right acquired by the assessee is held to be non compete right then also, it is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 (1) (iii). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) - purchase of software - disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- Following the decision of Kawasaki Microelectronics Inc – India Branch V. DDIT (IT), Circle 1(1), Bangalore [2015 (9) TMI 9 - ITAT BANGALORE], which is on similar facts as those in the case on hand, we are of the opinion and hold that once the assessee has capitalized the payment in question though the assessee has not deducted tax at source on such payment, the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(i) cannot be invoked for disallowance of depreciation. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1539
Legality of reopening of assessment - bogus purchases - Held that:- Merely relying as some publication in the website of the Maharashtra Sales Tax authorities for making this addition cannot be sustained. No material/information was gathered by the AO from the authority which alleged that the dealers in question are Hawla Dealers.
The assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on him. All possible evidences have been produced to prove the genuineness of the purchases by the assessee. On the other hand, the assessing officer has made this disallowance based on surmises and conjectures, that to, by giving contradictory findings on the factum of purchase. Thus, we deleted the addition made and allow this ground of the assessee.
There is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer in the case on hand. The socalled confessions by Hawla agents are not in the record of the assessing officer either at the time of recording reasons for reopening or at the time of assessment. Thus the reopening of assessment is bad in law. Hence the ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1538
Addition u/s 14A - expenditure incurred towards the investment that earns exempt income - Held that:- It cannot be inferred that the dividend income would be directly proportional to the expenditure incurred on the investment earning exempt income. No merit in the order of the CIT(A) for having restricted the disallowance U/s.14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. Since the assessee has not computed its actual expenditure incurred towards the investment that earns exempt income, in the interest of justice, we remit back the matter to the file of AO for both the assessment years thereby affording one more opportunity to the assessee to work out the actual expenditure incurred by it towards the investment that earn exempt income and disallow the same. We further hereby direct the Ld.AO to verify the computation submitted by the assessee for both the assessment years and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit.
Addition on account of unsecured loans and unexplained sundry creditors - assessee could not discharge its onus with respect to the genuineness of the loan and the genuineness of the sundry creditors - Held that:- Though we do not appreciate the lethargic attitude of the assessee in not furnishing the requisite documents and records before the Ld.Revenue Authorities at the appropriate time, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit all these issues back to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration with direction to the Ld.Revenue Authorities to admit any fresh evidence produced by the assessee.
We further direct the assessee to promptly cooperate with the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld.Revenue Authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate Orders based on the materials on record. Appeals of the Revenue allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1537
CENVAT Credit - input/input services/capital goods not fully utilized in the manufacture of the final product and some quantity of the generated electricity is wheeled out from the factory - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the electricity generated by using the input and input services were not captively consumed for manufacture of the final product in entirety. Since some portion of generated electricity has been sold by the appellant to the grid on receipt of consideration, Cenvat credit attributable (proportionate) to the electricity wheeled out from the factory will not be available for the Cenvat benefit.
Since the quantum of generation of electricity and actual use within the factory captively have not been discussed in the adjudication order and no documents were produced by the appellant to that effect, the matter should go back to the original authority for ascertaining such aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1536
Condonation of delay filing appeal - Deduction u/s. 80IB denied on job work income earned in mixing of rubber compounds - delay in filling appeal - delay of 2819 days - sufficient cause - reason for delay - period of limitation - Held that:- If the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalise injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalising an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned.
Whether 2819 days was excessive or inordinate? - There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.[1984 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive.
In this case, the issue on merit regarding granting of deduction u/s. 80IB was covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, for the purpose of advancing substantial justice which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Thus we condone the delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
With regard to the deduction u/s.80IB on the job work income earned in mixing of rubber compounds, which came up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2014 (1) TMI 1037 - ITAT COCHIN] there is nothing in the section to indicate that article or thing produced or manufactured should be final product in itself. So much so, the activity of the assessee in their new industrial unit, which is mixing rubber with chemicals, process oil etc., making compound rubber, is covered by section 80IB of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1535
TPA - benchmarking on sale price - MAM - Held that:- Almost all the products which have been noticed in the assessment year 2005-06 have been sold in these years to different AEs in different geographical locations. If on sale of these products CUP method was not upheld in earlier years, then we do not see any reasons to apply that very method in this year as well. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the ITAT in the assessment year 2003-04 to 2006-07 on this issue, we do not find any error in the finding of the ld.CIT(A). The benchmarking on sale price of various products to AEs is to be tested by following TNM method and if that method is being followed then, it would reveal that the assessee has rightly justified its transactions at arm’s length, because the margin shown by it are higher than the average margin shown by the comparable entities, and therefore no adjustment can be made. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted such adjustment in this year, and the order of the ld.CIT(A) is upheld qua first issue.
Adjustment recommended in ALP of interest rate required to be charged by the assessee from its AE on the loans given by it - assessee has pointed out that LIBOR is the prevailing rate and it has charged LIBOR plus 1% - Held that:- No defect has been pointed out in this rate. Only thing is that one of the AEs has obtained loan from European market, therefore, the ld.TPO has applied that rate. To our mind this action of the ld.TPO could be justified if he has pointed out that a tested party in India has granted loan to its AE in dollar denomination at a higher rate than the LIBOR plus 1%. It is also pertinent to note the cost of the funds to the assessee. The assessee has contended that it has raised funds by issuing of FCCB at nominal cost 0.5% to 1% and it has given these funds to its AE. Thus, the assessee has demonstrated that the rate charged by it was at a market rate and its transactions were at arm’s length. No adjustment can be made in the rate of interest charged by the assessee from its AE on providing loans in dollar denomination. We allow the appeal of the assessee on this aspect, and delete adjustment recommended by the ld.TPO.
Adjustment recommended by the AO on the guarantee provided - Held that:- CIT(A) considered it and held that as per Insurance Act, Indian companies cannot take or make payment to foreign insurers. Since the assessee had made payment to its AE, the same was clearly within the purview of transfer pricing regulations, because it could not explain the business consideration and purpose of making payment on account of insurance, an even it could not take any insurance from foreign insurer. After going through the order of the ld.CIT(A), we do not see any reasons to interference the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue.
Prior period expenditure crystalised during this year could be set off against the prior period income and only net income or loss is to be given effect in the computation of income - Held that:- Considering our finding in the assessment year 2006-07, we partly allow all the grounds and direct the AO to tax only net differential amount. In other words, in any particular year, if there is a negative income, then that amount is to be debited to the profit & loss account. In other words, say, in the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has income of ₹ 41,11,972/- and expenditure of ₹ 47,34,697/-; there is a negative amount of ₹ 7,22,725/-. This net amount is to be allowed as expenditure to the assessee. On same principle, the income of the assessee be computed in rest of two years. Thus, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed.
Disallowance of business expenditure - Held that:- This expenditure was incurred by the assessee in order to perform its corporate social responsibility. Expenditure was given to Municipal Corporation, Surat and Ahmedabad and Surat Diamond Association. According to the assessee there were heavy rains and request came from Municipal Corporation. In order to fulfill the social responsibility, it has given the amounts. On due consideration of the facts, we are of the view that there cannot be any doubt about the genuineness of the payment. The payment was made to Municipal Corporation towards corporate social responsibility. This is an essential expenditure for keeping relationship smooth and the society at large. This expenditure deserves to be allowed to the assessee. Therefore, we allow this expenditure and delete disallowance.
Disallowance of expenditure - Held that:- We have observed that the assessee failed to give any evidence demonstrating nature of expenditure etc. However, considering volume of expenditure and part details submitted by the assessee i.e. incurred towards library books, R&D, deferred revenue expenses etc. we have confirmed the expenditure on adhoc basis at ₹ 10 lakhs. The ld.AO shall give necessary effect in these years also. This will meet ends of justice.
Provision of bad and doubtful debts - Held that:- The assessee has not actually written off debts, and therefore, its claim cannot be allowed. The ld.CIT(A) has rightly upheld the disallowance. We do not find any error in this ground of appeal, hence it is rejected.
Loans/investments in foreign subsidiaries - Whether on capital account and loss on account of capital assets ought not to be allowed under section 37? - Held that:- If the ld.Revenue authorities are accepting the gains on account of foreign exchange fluctuations as taxable then how and why the loss could be denied to the assessee? No specific finding has been recorded about the nature of loans and how such losses on account of fluctuations loss could be disallowed. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts that ld.Revenue authorities have failed to examine the issue by keeping in mind taxation of gains in earlier and subsequent years on the same loans, and failed to record any specific finding as to how in such circumstances the loss could be denied, we deem it appropriate to set aside this issue to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.
Disallowance of section 14A r.w.s Rule 8D - Held that:- No doubt the assessee is having sufficient interest free funds and according to the proposition in the decisions referred above, if an assessee has interest free funds more than the investment then no disallowance for interest expenditure in making investment, which would result in exempt income be made. However, in the assessment year 2006-07, we have confirmed the disallowance on account of administrative expenditure and other issues at ₹ 3.00 lakhs. Considering of our finding in the assessment year 2006-07 and overall facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the adhoc disallowance of ₹ 3 lakhs in the assessment year 2007-08 and equivalent to the amount confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- As find that in the asstt.year 2006-07, we have considered similar transactions between the assessee and the SDBPL. When the issue travelled to the Hon’ble High Court in earlier year, then it was pointed out that these were not simplicitor loan transactions, rather these are the business transactions whereby the current amount is being maintained. Both parties have given amounts to each other and these are adjustment entries. Considering the current account and number of transactions, and since the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the finding of the Tribunal in earlier years that these are not loans, which could be brought in the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act for the purpose of treating it as deemed dividend, we respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the assessment year 2006-07 as well as judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in earlier years, are of the view that advance given to M/s.Bhadra Raj Holdings P.Ltd. cannot be treated as deemed dividend. We allow this ground of appeal.
Determination of correct amount for grant of deduction under section 10B - Held that:- We direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee under section 10B in accordance with our directions contained in order for the assessment year 2006-07. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeals of the assessee and reject that of the Revenue.
Addition under section 14A while computing book profit - calculation of profits both under MAT and normal provisions - Held that:- As in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd.[2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] Special Bench after discussing the issue in detail and considering various authoritative pronouncements answered in favour of the assessee by holding that scope of section 14A could not be extended to the provisions of section 115JB, and computation of book profits under section 115JB is to be made without resorting to disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act. Therefore, following the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) we direct the AO to recompute the book profit by excluding disallowance under section 14A and we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1534
Winding up application - Held that:- Company is involved circumstances and it is unable to pay its debt under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act,1956. Thus, this Court has no option but to allow this winding up application. Accordingly, there shall be an order in terms of prayers (a) to (g) of the Judge’s Summons.
The Official Liquidator is directed to forthwith take possession of all the assets and properties of the company lying at its registered office its factories, together with its business and affairs.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1533
TDS u/s 194H - non deduction of tds on credit card commission expenses by bank - Held that:- Following this Tribunal in the case of Trident Automobiles (P.) Ltd., (2015 (7) TMI 406 - ITAT BANGALORE) and M/s. Mysore Saree Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT BANGALORE) we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that payments on account of credit card charges deducted by Banks are not in the nature of commission and therefore no deduction of tax at source thereon is warranted, as the provisions of sec. 194H of the Act are not applicable or attracted in the matter. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (6) TMI 1532
Implementation of order passed by CESTAT - provisional release of the cargo subject to new conditions - Revenue has proposed to file an appeal against the order of the Tribunal.
Held that:- In the interregnum, this Court cannot issue a direction to implement the order of the Tribunal, since this Court cannot curtail a statutory appeal remedy available to a party under the provisions of the Customs Act. All that this Court can do is to dispose of the writ petition with an observation - the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that if the respondent fails to invoke the appeal remedy available to them under the said Act within the period of limitation stipulated, by taking note of the fact that the order copy has been received by the Department on 12.6.2018, on the expiry of limitation period, within one week thereafter, the respondent shall implement the order passed by the Tribunal.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1531
Method of Valuation - "Branded Chewing Tobacco‟ under the brand name of “MOR CHHAP” - Whether the appellants final packed product is required to be assessed to duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act or the same would attract duty in terms of Section 4 of CEA?
Held that:- The issue now stand decided in the appellants own case Jagan Nath Dalip Singh and Others Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad, [2017 (8) TMI 587] laying down that the goods manufactured by the appellants are entitled to assessment of duty under the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act in respect of retail packages in question - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1530
Liability of Service tax - Sub-Contract - M/s UPL, principal contractor is paying service tax liability in respect of such contracts under which work was executed by the appellant - Held that:- The appellant have taken a categorical stands that their principal contractor for whom they were working as Sub-contractor has already discharged full tax liability on the full value of the contract. The appellant is only a sub-contractor and second time tax liability cannot be fastened upon him - As per the settled law if the service tax stands paid on the full value by main contractor, no further liability would arise against the present appellant.
Appellant had produced certificate from principal contractors to the effect that he has paid the entire tax - Inasmuch as the Revenue is disputing the said fact, it is fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification of the said factual position - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1529
Taxability of a sum received as interest on enhanced compensation - assessee claimed that interest received is nothing but compensation and therefore even for the interest portion received, exemption u/s. 10(37) is applicable - as per AO Interest on enhanced compensation was chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) - Held that:- It is not disputed by the AO that the land acquired was agricultural land and the conditions laid down u/s. 10(37)(i) to (iv) are applicable to the land which is in question which was compulsorily acquired. It is also not in dispute that the interest in question was interest awarded u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (2016 (5) TMI 488 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) will be applicable to the facts of the present case wherein as held that interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is an accretion to compensation and forms part of the compensation and, therefore, exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the Act. Interest under section 28 of the Act of 1894 is part of the amount of compensation whereas interest under section 34 thereof is only for delay in making payment after the compensation amount is determined. Interest under section 28 is a part of the enhanced value of the land which is not the case in the matter of payment of interest under section 34
CIT(Appeals) is fully justified in allowing exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act on the interest received by the assessee u/s. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (6) TMI 1528
Services by a governmental authority by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a municipality - occupation and use of any stall, shop or slaughter house or for a right to slaughter animals in any corporation’s slaughter house - scope of exemption N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - Held that:- As against the finding of the Appellate Authority, which are unambiguous and passed on the basis of various provisions of Constitution, Revenue has not given any reasonable ground to interfere in the said order - Inasmuch as, admittedly, the respondent were doing the statutory activity, there is no reason to interfere in the order of Appellate Authority - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1527
Space or time selling service for advertisement - whether sale of space by Municipal Corporation for advertisement and charge of legal fee of the amount for providing taxable services under the category of “space or time selling service” for advertisement are liable to service tax?
Held that:- The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of city of Ahmedabad [2010 (3) TMI 1011 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and it was held that grant of permission is part and parcel of function of Municipal Corporation in the form of public duty to be ensure better Municipal governance and cannot be termed as services rendered to agents.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1526
Computing income under Section 44BB - whether the service tax collected by the assessee shall form part of gross receipts for computing income under Section 44BB? - Held that:- We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mitchell Drilling International (P) Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 259 - DELHI HIGH COURT) in holding that service tax collected by the assessee cannot form part of gross receipts.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1525
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)/271AAA - Assessee has not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived - Held that:- In all these cases the AO has not struck down the relevant “word” from the sentence in the cyclostyled proforma of penalty show cause notice which means that the Assessing Officer was not sure as to on what ground he has initiated the penalty proceedings and in such a case the alleged notice is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.
If the revenue has not asked specific question relating to the manner of deriving undisclosed income, the assessee while fulfilling the first condition of admitting the undisclosed income has already specified the manner of earning the income i.e. from business sources and the statement u/s 132(4) was not for individual business concern, but was for the group concerns/companies/business associates/individuals and at the point of time of giving the statement during the course of search, specific details about each business concern and the source of earning such undisclosed income are not practically possible for the person giving the statement on behalf of the group concerns/individuals.
The business income surrendered has been offered and assessed as business income only. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the findings of the AO levying penalty u/s 271AAA. We accordingly set aside the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and delete the penalty in the case of M/s Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Limited, in the case of Keti-T Construction (India) Limited and in the case of Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Limited levied u/s 271AAA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1524
Classification of services - shifting of iron ore to the place where crusher was located and to load it - moving of the crushed ore from the crusher to the stacking area within the mines - classified under Cargo Handling Service or not? - Held that:- The activity undertaken by the appellant and covered by both the contracts executed with RSMML, pertain to movement of mined ore to the crushing area where the ores are crushed for the purpose of concentrating. After the crushing, the minerals are further transported within the mines to a different area. It has been argued that the activity undertaken does not fall under the definition of ‘Cargo Handling Service’ which essentially deals with loading, unloading and packing and unpacking of cargo - the classification of the activity under ‘Cargo Handling Service’ is not proper.
The matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the classification and the levy of service tax - appeal is allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
