|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 2046 Records
-
2018 (10) TMI 1710
Interpretation of statute - Karasamadhana Scheme, 2017 - Waiver of penalty and interest - recovery of tax arrear - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. WS RETAIL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT) AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALURU [ 2017 (11) TMI 864 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] where it was held that the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioners-assessees under the Scheme ‘KSS 2017’, after adjustment of the amounts deposited by them after the assessment orders were passed, first under the head ‘interest’ and thereafter computing the arrears of tax, interest and penalty is unsustainable in law and illegal.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1709
Smuggling - recovery of contraband doda powder or not - whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the accused?
HELD THAT:- When asked about possession of the contraband, the accused admitted the same, then option was given to him if he wishes to be searched in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, which he declined and reposed trust in the police party itself, then search was made. On search being made seven polythene packets were recovered from inside the white sack. On weighing the seven recovered packets, the aggregate weight of the contraband/substance was found to be 10 kg in all - Here, it can be observed that the search cannot be confined to the search of the person as is the case herein in hand because it was the sack recovered from the hand of the accused which the accused was holding at the time of his apprehension by the policestrictly speaking this aspect removes doubt regarding factum of search of person.
o far as, fact of safe conveyance of the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, that very aspect, has been satisfactorily proved by Constable Shamsher Ahmad PW2. He has categorically stated that he obtained the sample from the police station and took the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and entry of the same was noted in the General Diary of date 14.01.2007 at Serial No.16 at 8:20 hours. Similarly, the entry of return journey was also noted in the concerned General Diary at Serial No.29 of date 17.01.2007 at 2:50 p.m. He has categorically stated that the substance was taken in safe and sealed condition to the Forensic Science Laboratory and no tampering was made and it was so handed over at the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, on the point of sampling of the contraband substance and safe conveyance, the testimony inspires confidence and there is nothing, which may create any doubt regarding noncompliance of mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act so as to render the same doubtful.
The imposition of sentence for 15 years is justified and the same legal aspect has been rightly taken into account by the trial court while imposing sentence on the appellant - it cannot be said that the enhanced sentence is violative of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1708
Capital gain u/s 45 - conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company - credit of difference between the revaluation value and book value of the asset as loan in the capital account of the partners - HELD THAT:- When the assets and liabilities and business of the partnership firm as a going concern were taken over by a private limited company incorporated and the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm were allotted shares in the same proportion of the capital as it stood in the books of the firm on the date of succession, there was no transfer at all. Hence, there is no question of levy of tax on capital gain would arise for consideration at all.
The main contention of the Revenue is that on revaluation of the asset of the erstwhile partnership firm, the difference between revaluation and book value was credited in the capital account of the respective partners in the same proportion of their capital as loan, therefore, there was indirect benefit to the shareholders and erstwhile partners. The question arises for consideration is whether there was any transfer on revaluation? Revaluation of existing asset of the partnership firm by itself does not amount to any transfer as held by the Madras High Court in CADD Centre [2016 (5) TMI 422 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] after considering the provisions of Section 47(xiii) of the Act, held that Section 47(xiii) applies only to a case of transfer by sale. Moreover, Section 45(4) would apply only when there is distribution of asset to the partners. In view of this judgment of Madras High Court, there is no violations of the conditions stipulated in Section 47(xiii) of the Act.
If we accept that the difference between the revaluation and book value credited in the capital account of the erstwhile partners in the same proportion as their capital as a loan amounts to indirect benefit to the erstwhile partners, under the scheme of Income-tax Act, capital gain tax cannot be levied on the assessee-company. Under the scheme of Income-tax Act, only transferor is liable to pay tax on capital gain. In the case before us, the assessee-company succeeded to assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. Therefore, the assessee-company may at the best be considered as transferee and certainly not transferor. Therefore, considering the facts of the case in all respects, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that capital gain tax cannot be levied in the hands of the assessee-company which succeeded to the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm. Hence, we are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities.
It may not be necessary for this Tribunal to go into the contention of the assessee regarding validity of assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, when there was search operation and proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Act.
We are unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer as capital gain is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1707
Penalty u/s 271AAB or 271AAA - notice under section 271AAB was issued by the Assessing Officer though after the assessment was completed - corrigendum issued stating that Section 271AAA should be read as Section 271AAB - HELD THAT:- Even if the Tribunal has provided on the wrong basis assuming incorrectly that a separate notice under section 271AAB was issued, the petitioner cannot argue, in facts of the present case, that the entire proceedings were vitiated. This is so for the reason that admittedly the Assessing Officer, after having initially issued notice under section 271AAA, shortly issued corrigendum correcting the reference to the statutory provision as 271AAB.
This was thus a case of pure correction of typographical error. The petitioner cannot argue that no valid notice under the law was issued. Concededly such correction also took-place long before the penalty proceedings proceeded further and culminated into the order of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer after giving full opportunity of defending to the assessee.
We are however inclined to examine the assessee's second contention regarding prior sanction. In this respect also, our inquiry would be whether initial notice though erroneously titled as one under section 271AAA of the Act was proceeded by sanction - Notice for final disposal returnable on 26.11.2018.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1706
The Delhi High Court directed CELEBI to release goods within one week. Custom Authorities and DRI ordered to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs to CELEBI. CELEBI Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. impleaded as a party. Respondents to file response within two weeks. Next hearing on 30th November, 2018.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1705
Imposition of Pre-import condition on imports made under the advanced authorization licenses - vires of Government of India Notification dated 13.10.2017 - recording of statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Notice returnable on 02.11.2018.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1704
Validity of reassessment order - due payment of duty in compliance of the reassessed order - HELD THAT:- The court notices that DRI had issued NOC to the custom authorities on 11.04.2018. The delay, if any, in completion of assessment/reassessment therefore shall not be to the account of the petitioner for the four months’ period between 11.04.2018 and 28.07.2018 with respect to the demurrage payable. Same shall be to the account of custom authorities.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1703
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly facts and circumstances of present AY 2006-07 are quite similar and identical to the facts and circumstances of the AY 2007-08 and 2010-11 therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s. 80IA to the assessee by dismissing appeal of the Revenue and upholding the order of the CIT(A) for these two years. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we hold that the CIT(A) was allowed for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act to the assessee for AY 2006-07 and there is no valid reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, sole ground of Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1702
Vires of Section 65(105) (zzd) and 65(39a) of the Finance Act, 1994 - constitutional scheme of the legislation for levy of service tax in India - Levy of service tax on indivisible works contracts prior to introduction of the Finance Act, 2007 - HELD THAT:- The law declared and ratio enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT ] is binding precedent as per Article 142 of the Constitution of India and would accordingly apply and bind the respondents’ authorities, where it was held that Works contract were not chargeable to service tax prior to 1.6.2007.
We would allow the present writ petition in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited and hold that the impugned circulars and instructions to the contrary would have to be disregarded.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1701
Addition u/s 69C - CIT-A deleted the addition after admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules - HELD THAT:- We find no reasons to interfere in the matter. The appellant has not even faulted the explanation on merits but confirmed the plea to inadmissibility of additional evidence by the CIT(A). We are not inclined to uphold this plea, particularly looking to the fact that explanation is not challenged and that amount involved is a small amount. We approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) - whether payments made were governed by clause(b) to Sub section(2) of Section 5 of the IT Act and not u/s.9(2) - HELD THAT:- the issue about taxability of commission earnings by non-resident, for work done outside India, is now decided in favour of the assessee by a large number of judicial precedents. That precisely is the issue in this case, and we must, therefore, uphold the relief granted by the CIT(A) on this point.
Estimation of gross profit - whether material brought on record when assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancy in stocks? - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer was confronted with the explanation of the assessee, he did not have anything to say beyond that “action taken in the original assessment proceedings was correct” as, according to the Assessing Officer, “there were discrepancies”. These findings of the CIT(A) are not claimed to be perverse or factually incorrect. When an Assessing Officer declines to meet the specific points raised by the assessee in first appellate proceedings, there is obviously no point in challenging the conclusions arrived at in the first appellate proceedings based on vague generalities. No specific issues are raised in appeal before us. We have also noted that the learned CIT(A) has granted impugned relief on the basis of specific explanations of the assessee which have remained uncontroverted. In the light of these discussions as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve well reasoned conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1700
Additional depreciation on account of Wind Mills commissioned and operated by the assessee - whether generation of electricity was not in the nature of manufacture or production as intended u/s.32(1)(iia)? - HELD THAT:- We find that the power generation is a manufacturing activity and duly recognized by the government. It is a priority section under the government policies. In this particular business, wind is the raw-material for generation of electricity and/or power by wind mills through which the turbines are operated and power is generated and transmitted to grid lines. Since this is manufacturing activity claim of additional depreciation under the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is attracted, in fact, the activity has been well verified by the auditors of the company which have been certified separately by way of certificates which are required to be submitted for claiming such additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) as discussed above in Form No.3AA copy whereof was also submitted with the return of income as a part of audited report by the assessee.
As relying on GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS LTD [2017 (3) TMI 1337 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] assessee is entitled to claim of depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act on windmill and we, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, the appeal preferred by the Department against the impugned order is dismissed.
Addition u/s. 41(1) - Assessee had failed to discharge its onus to prove existence of the liability to pay the creditors - HELD THAT:- We find that merely because the liabilities are outstanding for a long period of time the same cannot be said to be ceased to exist. Neither the AO has proved that the assessee has obtained the benefit of the said liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof. The judgments cited above have decided the same issue involved in this matter as discussed. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and respectfully following the judgments, we decline to interfere with the same. This ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is thus dismissed. ]
Disallowance on account of setting off STCG against depreciation - HELD THAT:- A decided in MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [1986 (7) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] which decided the issue of the present case relating to setting off STCG against brought forward unabsorbed depreciation in favour of the assessee, we find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal preferred by the Department.
Addition u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- AO the duties of the assessee casted upon him u/s.68 of the Act has rightly been discharged in order to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. Relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Ranchood Jivabha Nakhava [2012 (5) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the further observed that it was the Ld. Assessing Officer who is to find out from the records available with him since Shri Pradip S. Mehta being one of the assessees also under him has no creditworthiness before making such addition u/s.68. He therefore deleted the addition of ₹ 20,05,000/-. AO failed to consider that the loan was accepted through banking channel only and the details which was given by the authorized signatory of the Director were also not verified vis-a-vis records available with him in its proper perspective. The said lacuna has rightly been pointed out by the CIT(A) and deleted the addition accordingly. We thus do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is therefore disallowed by us
Disallowance of claim on account of bad debt written off - HELD THAT:- Relying upon the judgment of TRF Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] as being settled principle of law, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld.
Addition of cash deposit - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) on the basis of the audited books of accounts and in the absence of any adverse comment by tax auditor or finding of incorrect cash book and the recording of transactions and reflections in the books of accounts found no fault on the part of the assessee neither reason to disbelieve the assessee as made by the AO because of export business of the assessee only on assumption and without any basis. CIT(A) found the addition is based on surmises & conjectures in the absence of verification made by AO. Relying upon the judgment of the Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan [1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] holding that presumption on surmises by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot be justified for such audited cash book and bank book the Ld.CIT(A) deleted such addition. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Saurin Nandkumar Shodhan, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1699
Offence Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 - provisional attachment - HELD THAT:- We are constraint to note that the averments made in para 5 of the Special Appeal are factual. As per the said reply to para 5, Shri Aditya Lodha and his son Shri Manan Lodha retired on 01.06.2015 and only Shri Tarachand Parakh and his son Shri Aditya Parakh remained the partners in the LLP till 10.07.2017.
During this period, the transactions were carried out by Shri Aditya Lodha alone and Shri Tara Chand Parakh and his son Shri Aditya Parakh were not even aware of the said transactions, which has given rise to bonafide suspicion that the property is benami property. Hence, we agree with the learned Single Judge that in case, we go into the same at this stage, it would effect the finding with respect to the property as to whether the same was benami or not. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere in the order impugned.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1698
Penalty imposed u/s 271AAA - as alleged assessee has not satisfied the conditions laid down in section 271AAA(2)(ii) and 271AAA(2)(iii) - unaccounted income received by the assessee undisclosed - onus on the assessee to admit, specify and substantiate the undisclosed income and pay tax and interest thereon - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the appellant has offered the total of unaccounted income for AY 2011- 12 in the statement recorded during the search and seizure operation u/s. 132(4) - This declaration/surrender was based on the notes in the diary/note book market as Annexure-BS-2 which clearly mentions the date-wise receipts of ‘on money’ or ‘unaccounted receipts’ in the name of the appellant company as well as in the name of the other concerns of the appellant group. From the notings on the pages of said diary/note book Annexure-BS-2 there was clear mentioning of the date/months and unaccounted income received by the assessee during the said period, which was offered to tax during statement u/s. 132 of the Act.
From the copy of the statement of Shri Karshanbhai M. Prjapati recorded u/s. 132(4) we observe that replying to Q. Nos.5, 6 & 7, the assessee clearly stated the manner of earning such undisclosed income of ₹ 9.29 crores as derived from construction business of the appellant company in the projects namely ‘Swastik Universal’, which was a residential complex. Then, the condition provided in sub s. (i) of s. 271AAA(2) of the Act is satisfied as the manner of earning of undisclosed income has been clearly stated by the assessee in the statement of director of assessee company recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has shown surrendered income in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act and has paid all due taxes etc. thereon and thus, another required condition has also been fulfilled by the assessee. See M /S GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 2310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1697
TP Adjustment - Determination of the arm’s length price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of rendering IT enabled services (ITes) by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- The functions performed by the assessee, as we have already seen is back office services relating to finance and human resource functions, including accounts payable to assessee, remote server access, maintenance and management services, payroll processing, credit analysis, ledger maintenance, etc. for its affiliates worldwide. It is thus clear that the information technology services provided by the assessee cannot be compared with Engineering Design Services provided by Acropetal Technologies Ltd. Therefore, the conclusion that this company is not functionally comparable is found to be correct.
We also find that this Tribunal in the case of Novo Nordisk (I) P. Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 1560 - ITAT BANGALORE] has held that in the case of a company which was rendering similar ITeS as that of assessee it was held that Acropetal Technologies Ltd. cannot be considered as a comparable in ITeS segment.
Deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- The provision of set off and carry forward as contemplated under Chapter-VI of the Act would not be attracted and therefore intra head set off sought by seeking to rely on the provision of section 70(1) of the Act and seeking to restrict the deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act to the extent of gross total income as contemplated u/s 80A(2) of the Act, cannot be sustained. We therefore hold that deduction u/s.10A of the Act has to be allowed without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of non Sec. 10A units before allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we find no merit in ground No.12 raised by the revenue. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1696
Disallowance of deduction u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) - Employees' contribution to PF and ESI - failure to deposit before due date - Revenue did not permit deduction of such sum from the income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As assessee did deposit such amount of contribution towards PF & ESIC accounts, however, missed the deadline prescribed in the statutes for such purpose. On account of this, the Revenue did not permit deduction of such sum from the income of the assessee. Such disallowance thereupon became the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the ground, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
The question of law proposed in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed by this Court. In such circumstances referred to above, this appeal, at this stage, is dismissed. However, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgement in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC (Supra), it would be open for the appellant to revive this appeal by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgement. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1695
Replacement of old machineries with new one - nature of expenditure - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Appeal allowed in favour of assessee as relying on assessee own case [2018 (9) TMI 1858 - ITAT SURAT] as in the instant case, there is replacement of damaged part in view of Chartered Engineering certificate in respect of Turbine Rotor Assembly, Gear shaft with Gear Part , Nozzles Ring , 415 V, 3000A 3 PHH PMCC for CHP are the part of main machine not capable of functioning independently - items of machinery to replace component and relying on various case laws examined the explanation of the assessee and on the basis of explanation furnished by the assessee, deleted the additions disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (10) TMI 1694
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - addition offered suo motu by the assessee - HELD THAT:- AO has not shown any dissatisfaction with the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D offered suo motu by the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative has not disputed this factual aspect. In view of these discussions, the impugned disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D, as challenged in appeal before us, stands deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. DR fairly accepts that if the appeal of the assessee, on this issue i.e. 14A disallowance, is to be allowed, the grievance raised by the revenue will be rendered infructuous. As the appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed, the appeal of the revenue on this issue is indeed rendered infructuous.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1693
Deduction u/s 80IA - fresh claim made before AO in the course of assessment proceedings - mark to mark loss provisions written back, loss on cancellation of forward contracts incurred during the financial year 2011-12 and deduction U/s.80IA by giving due weightage to the statutory form No.10CCB filed during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by directing the Ld.AO to admit the fresh claim made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings by relying in the very same decision rendered in the case Goetze India Ltd vs. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Vs. Abhinitha Foundation (P) Ltd., [2017 (6) TMI 604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we find merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), who has rightly relied in the decision of the higher and apex judiciaries.
As in the case National Thermal Power Company Ltd., vs. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on the question of law arising from the facts found by the Income Tax Authorities having bearing on the tax liability of the assessee - direct AO to admit the fresh claim made by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and adjudicate the same in accordance with law and merit after affording enough opportunity of being heard. Accordingly we hereby hold that the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of merits.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1692
Deduction u/s 80IB - Scrutiny assessment orders u/s 143(3) - AO allowed deduction on the profits from the sale of residential units; as regards the profits from the leave and licence fees, the AO held that such income is not "derived from" the development of a housing project but from letting thereof (though it is business income) and hence, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) on this component - CIT-A allowed claim - HELD THAT:- In terms of section 80IB(10), what is relevant is the plans approved by the local authority and if the construction is as per such plans, deduction under section 80IB(10) cannot be denied; even if two adjacent residential units have been merged into a bigger flat, so long as the assessee satisfies all the conditions prescribed for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) and the assessee has constructed residential units which have BUA of less than 1,000 sq. feet. deduction cannot be denied. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessee had got the plans approved with each residential unit having a BUA of less than 1,000 sq. feet and allotted residential units to the purchasers with a BUA of less than 1,000 sq. feet. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the IT Act.
With regard to the AO’s contention of treating income derived from leave and licence fee not in the nature of income leviable for deduction u/s.80IB(10), we observe that the ITAT, in assessee's own appeals against the orders u/s 143(3) of the Act for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 [2014 (10) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held such income to be eligible for deduction u/s 801B(10) of the Act.
With regard to the AO’s reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Kumar and Company [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held by the Constitution Bench that when there is an ambiguity in an exemption notification, it should be interpreted strictly, we found that the applicability of this decision is only when there is an ambiguity. In a case there is no ambiguity in the language of the section, the ratio of this decision is not applicable. Since the DR has not pointed out any ambiguity in the language of section 80IB(10), the ratio of this decision is not applicable in the instant case.
No infirmity in the well reasoned order of CIT(A) wherein CIT(A) has dealt with the issue of assessee’s eligibility u/s.80IB threadbare after recording detailed findings. The findings recorded by him are as per material on record which do not require any interference on our part. - Decided against revenue
-
2018 (10) TMI 1691
Refund of education cess and higher education cess - Area based exemption as per North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 - whether the education cess and higher education cess were a part of the excise duty? - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the education cess and the higher education cess levied @ 2% of the excise duty would partake the character of excise duty itself. Accordingly, it was held that the appellants therein were entitled to a refund of the education cess and the higher education cess, which was paid along with the excise duty, once the excise duty itself was exempted from levy.
This Court directs the respondents in the Department of Excise/Goods and Services Tax of the Government of India, more particularly the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to make an appropriate calculation and thereupon refund the education cess and the higher education cess paid by the petitioner from 2004-2005 to 2014-2015 - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
