|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 781 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 709
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income.
2. Bona fide belief and reliance on judicial precedents for claiming deductions.
3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).
Summary:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order dated July 17, 2003, which deleted the penalty of Rs. 26,47,246 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reduced the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80-I by Rs. 49,02,306 and initiated penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO levied the penalty for the excess claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 49,02,806.
2. Bona fide belief and reliance on judicial precedents for claiming deductions:
The assessee claimed the deduction based on the decisions of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. Tarun Udyog [1991] 191 ITR 688 and the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 235, believing that they were entitled to the deduction without setting off the brought forward investment allowance. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the assessee had not concealed any facts and had made the claim based on the judicial precedents available at the time, thus deleting the penalty.
3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal noted that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) applies to cases of concealment of income, not for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the onus was on the AO to prove this. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed how the deduction u/s 80-I was claimed and that the claim was supported by various judicial decisions. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and substantiated by case laws, and thus, no penalty could be imposed.
The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244, noting that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and does not require wilful concealment. However, in this case, there was no material evidence proving that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order, deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on December 11, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 708
Issues involved: Six appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad, for the assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2006-07 u/s 153A(b) read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Excise Duty Issue:
The assessee contested the addition on account of excise duty not included in the closing stock of finished goods. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 145A of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that adjustment to closing stock should be for tax, duty, or cess actually paid or incurred, not accrued. Referring to relevant court decisions, including CIT v. Parry Confectionary Ltd., it was concluded that excise duty on goods not cleared from the factory should not be included in valuing closing stock. The Tribunal held that excise duty is incurred only when goods are cleared from the factory premises for sale, not merely upon manufacturing completion. Consequently, the addition made by the authorities was deemed incorrect and was deleted.
Household Expenses Issue:
Regarding the addition in household expenses for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05, the Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the assessment for 2004-05, where the addition should have been limited to Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 50,000. As a result, the assessee received a relief of Rs. 30,000 for 2004-05. However, the addition for the assessment year 2002-03 was considered reasonable and confirmed. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for all years.
The judgment was pronounced on December 11, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 707
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IB and depreciation, interpretation of Factories Act rules.
Deduction u/s 80-IB:
- Assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB for the assessment year 2005-06.
- Disallowed by Assessing Officer due to factory licence issued after the claimed start of manufacturing activity.
- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld disallowance citing violation of Factories Act rules.
- Tribunal referred to previous cases where deduction allowed if manufacturing activity commenced before licence obtained.
- Tribunal held that actual start of production before specified date is crucial, not just licence issue date.
- SSI registration certificate showed production started before claimed date, supporting assessee's case.
- Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80-IB.
Depreciation:
- Assessee also challenged disallowance of depreciation.
- Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to recompute deduction under section 80-IB after deducting unabsorbed and current year depreciation.
- Citing precedent from Full Bench of Bombay High Court, Tribunal emphasized the importance of including depreciation in profit calculation for deduction under section 80-IB.
Interpretation of Factories Act rules:
- Tribunal highlighted the significance of actual start of production over licence issue date in determining eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IB.
- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) misinterpreted rules by focusing on licence issue date rather than actual production start date.
- Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings, emphasizing the factual commencement of manufacturing activity for deduction eligibility.
-
2009 (12) TMI 706
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition u/s 69B of alleged undisclosed investment.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the purchase of a property where the Assessing Officer considered the actual consideration to be higher than what was declared, resulting in an addition of Rs. 9,79,780. The assessee contended that section 50C is applicable to sellers for computing capital gains and cannot be extended to buyers. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered various judicial pronouncements and concluded that the addition was not justified.
Key Details for Each Issue:
- The Assessing Officer relied on stamp duty valuation to make the addition under section 69B, but the Commissioner noted that section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers. The absence of evidence showing actual higher consideration led to the deletion of the addition.
- The Commissioner referenced a decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which emphasized that the stamp duty valuation does not imply undisclosed investment by the buyer. Various judicial pronouncements supported the view that additions for unexplained investment require independent evidence.
- Considering the lack of evidence beyond the valuation difference, the Commissioner found no basis for applying section 69B to the buyer. The addition was deemed unjustified based on the legal interpretations and precedents cited.
This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between the roles of buyers and sellers under tax laws and the necessity of concrete evidence to support additions for undisclosed investments.
-
2009 (12) TMI 705
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271B for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB for AY 2003-04.
Summary:
The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 21,030 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for not getting accounts audited u/s 44AB for AY 2003-04. The grounds of appeal included challenging the validity of the Assessing Officer's order, disputing the treatment of interest receipts in calculating turnover, and contesting the penalty amount. The Assessing Officer considered arhat commission and interest income in determining the turnover, leading to the penalty imposition. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty citing the inapplicability of certain case laws. However, the ITAT Delhi found that the assessee had a genuine belief that only net interest income and net arhat commission should be included in turnover. As the turnover was marginally above the threshold and the assessee believed their turnover was lower, the penalty was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed on December 4, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 704
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment reopening under section 147.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure related to exempt dividend income.
3. Addition of unsecured loans and sundry creditors.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assessment Reopening under Section 147:
The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision, which annulled the assessment as void ab initio. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the only reason recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment was the claim of interest income out of exempt income, and not the unsecured loans and other credits. According to the Commissioner, the Assessing Officer should have recorded reasons for reopening the assessment on account of unsecured loans and credits as well. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the Assessing Officer cannot resort to section 147 only for making disallowance under section 14A, and once the reasons fail to empower the Assessing Officer to take action under section 14A, the whole basis of the assessment goes away. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) annulled the assessment as a whole.
2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure Related to Exempt Dividend Income:
The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had raised unsecured loans and used them for investment purposes, generating exempt dividend income. The interest paid on these loans was debited to the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs. 33,80,312 against the dividend income claimed to be exempt under section 10(33) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that section 14A, even though introduced with effect from April 1, 1962, cannot be invoked for reassessment to disallow the proportionate expenditure on exempt income. However, the Assessing Officer justified the disallowance by stating that income is always taxable after deducting the related expenditure.
3. Addition of Unsecured Loans and Sundry Creditors:
The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had taken unsecured loans in the form of inter-corporate deposits (ICD) and added the same to the income due to the assessee's failure to produce the parties who had advanced the ICDs. Similarly, an addition was made for sundry creditors as the assessee did not furnish their addresses or produce them before the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer did not record reasons related to these unsecured loans and creditors for reopening the assessment, thus invalidating these additions.
Judgment Summary:
The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and found that the Assessing Officer did not invoke the provisions of section 14A for reopening the assessment or while framing the reassessment. The justification given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for annulling the assessment was deemed untenable. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not decide on the merits regarding the validity of reopening and the justification of the claim of interest expenditure against the exempt income. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the entire appeal to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision in terms of their observations. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) annulling the assessment was set aside. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to reconsider the issues afresh, particularly the validity of reopening the assessment and the disallowance of interest expenditure related to exempt income. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's actions should not have been annulled solely based on the non-invocation of section 14A.
-
2009 (12) TMI 703
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of interest income for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC.
3. Netting of interest received against interest paid.
Summary:
1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148, arguing that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and all material facts were disclosed fully and truly. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not apply his mind regarding the nexus between interest received and interest payment during the original assessment. The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as there was no application of mind by the AO, following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Indian Sugar and Gen. Ind. Ex. [2008] 303 ITR 155 (Delhi).
2. Treatment of Interest Income for Deduction u/s 80HHC:
The AO treated the interest income on fixed deposits as "income from other sources" and excluded 90% of it from business income while computing the deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal examined past decisions and held that the matter should be remanded back to the AO to examine the nexus between interest received and interest payment. The AO should exclude only 90% of net interest income, if any, from business profit for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s 80HHC, following the judgment in Shri Ram Honda Power Equip [2007] 289 ITR 475 (Delhi).
3. Netting of Interest Received Against Interest Paid:
The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, where it was held that the assessee is eligible for netting of interest income against interest payment. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the nexus between interest received and interest payment and compute the net interest accordingly.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh decision on the nexus between interest received and interest payment and the computation of net interest for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid.
-
2009 (12) TMI 702
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the objects of the trust are charitable in nature under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the trust is eligible for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the objects of the trust are charitable in nature under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee, a trust constituted on August 22, 2008, applied for registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) questioned the charitable nature of the trust's objects, especially sub-clauses 11, 12, and 13 of clause 4, which pertain to addressing housing needs, printing books, and providing guidance on residence needs. The Director found these objects vague and not precisely defined as charitable.
The Tribunal reviewed the trust deed and noted that the totality of clause 4's sub-clauses, which include providing medical relief, educational grants, and support for the needy, clearly indicate charitable purposes. Even the contentious sub-clauses 11, 12, and 13 were found to be charitable, as they aim to benefit the needy without profit motive. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Gangabai Charities [1992] 197 ITR 416, where the lack of specific charitable intent led to denial of exemption. However, in the present case, the trust's intent to use profits for charitable purposes was clear.
The Tribunal also cited the Madras High Court's decision in CIT/CWT v. Babulal Khinchand Trust [2000] 243 ITR 790, affirming that the trust's property and income must be applied solely for charitable purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the trust's objects are charitable in nature, as they aim to benefit the needy and weaker sections of society without profit motive.
2. Whether the trust is eligible for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act:
Section 12A of the Act requires that a trust must apply for registration within one year from its creation. The assessee applied for registration on September 23, 2008, within the stipulated period. The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) rejected the application, citing the vagueness of the trust's objects.
The Tribunal examined the trust deed and found that the objects are charitable in nature. The Tribunal emphasized that the intention of the trust is crucial in determining eligibility for registration. The trust's objects, including providing housing, printing educational materials, and supporting the needy, align with charitable purposes as defined under section 2(15) of the Act.
The Tribunal directed the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) to grant registration to the assessee, as the trust's objects are charitable and there is no profit motive. The Tribunal's decision is supported by the certificate of charity granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Charity, Greater Mumbai.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) to grant registration to the assessee under section 12A read with section 12AA of the Income-tax Act. The order was pronounced on December 10, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 701
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the legality of the assessment completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, specifically concerning the failure to consider the reply filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 142(1) and the absence of a notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time. Additionally, the judgment addresses the transfer of property based on the date of a development agreement and the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune.
Legal Issue - Failure to Consider Assessee's Reply:
The assessee raised a legal issue against the order under section 144, contending that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply filed in response to the notice under section 142(1) and did not issue a notice under section 143(2) within the statutory time. The assessee argued that the assessment completed under section 144 was invalid and should be considered null and void.
Legal Issue - Transfer of Property Date:
Another issue raised was regarding the transfer of property, with ground No. 4 contesting the determination of the transfer date based solely on the date of a development agreement in the financial year 2004-05.
Jurisdictional Issue - Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune:
The judgment also delves into the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune, who issued notices and completed the assessment under section 144. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune, lacked jurisdiction over the assessee and proceeded to assess without following proper procedures.
Decision and Rationale:
After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune, was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the Income-tax Officer (HQ) CIB, Pune, did not have the authority to assess the assessee and had completed the assessment without issuing the necessary statutory notices. As a result, the assessment under section 144 was deemed unlawful and was quashed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of jurisdictional correctness in assessment proceedings, citing relevant legal precedents and instructions from the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, declaring the assessment under section 144 as invalid and emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional adherence in tax assessments.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2009 (12) TMI 700
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of commission payments by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
2. Evidentiary value of statements recorded during the survey.
3. Legality and public policy concerns regarding commission payments.
4. Consistency of findings across different assessment years.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The core issue in these appeals revolves around the disallowance of commission payments made by the assessee to various sub-agents. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these payments on the grounds that the assessee failed to produce evidence proving the services rendered by the sub-agents. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted the disallowance, noting that the sub-agents appeared before the AO during remand proceedings and confirmed the receipt of commission and the services rendered. The CIT(A) found no material discrepancies in their statements or documents, thus concluding that the disallowance was unwarranted.
2. Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During the Survey:
A significant point of contention was the evidentiary value of the statement given by the assessee during the survey under section 133A, where the assessee admitted that the commission payments were bogus. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal noted that statements recorded under section 133A do not have the same evidentiary value as those recorded under sections 131 or 132(4), which are on oath. The Tribunal referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport, emphasizing that confessional statements without corroborative evidence cannot be used solely for making additions.
3. Legality and Public Policy Concerns Regarding Commission Payments:
The Revenue argued that the commission payments were against public policy, especially since the dealings involved government organizations like the Indian Navy and Coast Guard. The Tribunal, however, found no evidence that such payments were illegal or prohibited by law. The Tribunal cited the cases of Surya Foods and Agro Ltd. and Asst. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd., concluding that the payments were not against public policy and were therefore deductible under section 37(1).
4. Consistency of Findings Across Different Assessment Years:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed similar commission payments for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05, but a contrary view was taken for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found no distinguishing features between the facts of these years and thus applied the same reasoning across all years. The Tribunal emphasized consistency in judicial decisions, particularly when the facts remain unchanged.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could only be taxed on the net amount retained after paying the sub-agents. The statement made during the survey, which was later retracted, could not be the sole basis for disallowing the commission payments, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2005-06 was made applicable to the other years as well, ensuring consistency in the treatment of similar facts.
-
2009 (12) TMI 699
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of royalty expenses by treating them as capital expenditure.
2. Disallowance of ISO certification charges.
3. Addition on account of development charges.
4. Disallowance of QS 9000 and FTPM certification charges.
5. Depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Royalty Expenses:
The first issue pertains to the disallowance of royalty expenses by treating them as capital expenditure. The assessee had debited Rs.15,68,666/- in AY 2003-04 and Rs.20,73,720/- in AY 2004-05 as royalty expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation at 25%. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance based on the ITAT's decision for AY 2002-03. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court later ruled that the royalty payments were revenue expenditures, not capital. Consequently, the ITAT directed the AO to allow the relief to the assessee for both years, treating the royalty payments as revenue expenditure.
2. Disallowance of ISO Certification Charges:
The second issue involves the disallowance of ISO certification charges of Rs.95,254/- in AY 2003-04. The AO disallowed the amount as capital expenditure, considering the ISO 14001 certification as an enduring benefit. The CIT(A) upheld this view due to incomplete details provided by the assessee. However, the ITAT, referencing the case of Tirupati Microtech (P) Ltd., held that ISO certification charges are annual payments and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The ITAT directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for ISO certification charges.
3. Addition on Account of Development Charges:
The third issue concerns the addition on account of development charges. The ITAT noted that the nature and character of the payments made to various authorities were unclear. Therefore, the ITAT set aside this issue to the AO to examine the nature of the payments and decide as per the law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
4. Disallowance of QS 9000 and FTPM Certification Charges:
The fourth issue relates to the disallowance of Rs.25,430/- for QS 9000 and FTPM certification charges in AY 2004-05. The AO treated these as capital expenditure, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to incomplete details. The ITAT set aside this issue to the AO to examine the nature and character of the expenditure and decide accordingly, directing the assessee to provide complete information.
5. Depreciation on Computer Peripherals and Accessories:
The fifth issue involves the depreciation on computer peripherals and accessories amounting to Rs.8,90,529/-. The AO allowed 60% depreciation on computer hardware but not on peripherals like UPS, scanner, printers, etc. The CIT(A) allowed 60% depreciation on these items, treating them as integral parts of the computer. The ITAT set aside this issue to the AO to examine whether these peripherals could function independently. If they are integral parts of the computer, 60% depreciation is allowable; otherwise, standard depreciation rates apply.
Conclusion:
The appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 and by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT directed the AO to re-examine the issues as per the guidelines provided and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17th December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 698
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of rebate claims due to improper duty payment certification.
2. Responsibility for ensuring duty payment on goods.
3. Validity of transactions between exporter and manufacturer.
4. Recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Denial of Rebate Claims Due to Improper Duty Payment Certification
The applicant, M/s. Vikram International, filed rebate claims for duty paid on goods they manufactured. The claims were initially rejected because the Duty Payment Certificate was not submitted in a tamper-proof sealed cover. The lower authority concluded that proper Central Excise duty had not been discharged on the exported goods based on an Alert Circular and a letter indicating that the manufacturer had issued bogus invoices. This led to the rejection of the rebate claims.
2. Responsibility for Ensuring Duty Payment on Goods
The applicant argued that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure duty payment on grey fabrics, not the exporter's. They cited precedents where actions were taken against manufacturers for evasion of Cenvat Credit, not against exporters who had no link to the defaults. The applicant relied on several judgments to support their claim that they should not be penalized for the manufacturer's defaults.
3. Validity of Transactions Between Exporter and Manufacturer
The government observed that there was no doubt that the goods were exported out of India and that the applicant had made payments inclusive of Central Excise Duty. There was no evidence of any non-bona fide transactions or mutual interest between the applicant and the manufacturer. The applicant had followed all procedural requirements, and the transactions were at arm's length and in the normal course of business.
4. Recovery of Wrongly Availed Cenvat Credit
The government noted that sufficient legislative provisions exist to recover wrongly availed Cenvat Credit from the manufacturer, not the exporter. The wrongly availed credit is recoverable from the manufacturer along with interest and penalties. The applicant/exporter, who purchased and exported the goods legitimately, cannot be penalized by denying the rebate claim, especially when no evidence showed any connivance or intention on their part.
Conclusion:
The government concluded that the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant. It set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and original order, allowing the revision application with consequential relief. The decision emphasized that the responsibility for ensuring duty payment lies with the manufacturer and not the exporter, provided the transactions are bona fide and at arm's length. The revision application succeeded, and the order was so directed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 697
Whether the expression ‘unprotected worker’ means a worker not protected by labour legislation or whether the expression means a manual worker who is engaged or to be engaged in any scheduled employment as defined in Section 2(11) of the Mathadi Act?
Whether a Mathadi worker, who has been engaged directly by an employer, would fall outside the purview of the Mathadi Act?
Whether a manual worker engaged by the petitioner therein through a contractor was an unprotected worker although he was covered by various labour acts?
Held that:- SLP rejected.
-
2009 (12) TMI 696
Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. Disallowance of various expenses and additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Validity of penalty proceedings and the explanation provided by the assessee. Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found no material evidence of deliberate concealment of income by the assessee and held that mere disallowance of expenses does not automatically lead to penalty. Issue 2: Disallowance of Various Expenses and AdditionsThe Assessing Officer made several disallowances: Rs. 9,76,256 u/s 43B and 36(1)(va) for delayed provident fund deposits, Rs. 48,99,360 for repair and maintenance expenses, Rs. 26,45,967 for petty cash expenses, Rs. 23,37,548 for interest on loans, Rs. 15,000 for miscellaneous income, and Rs. 4,681 for undisclosed bank interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's explanations, noting that the disallowances were based on estimates and differences of opinion, not on evidence of concealment. Issue 3: Validity of Penalty Proceedings and Explanation by AssesseeThe assessee argued that the disallowances were based on legal interpretations and bona fide omissions, not concealment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed, citing judgments that mere disallowance does not justify penalty. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and require evidence of concealment, which was not present in this case. Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate concealment by the assessee and ruled that the disallowances were based on estimates and legal interpretations, not on any attempt to evade tax. Additional Note:The Tribunal also dismissed another appeal (I.T.A. No. 3812/M/2008) filed by the Revenue as infructuous, as it pertained to the same penalty for the same year already addressed in I.T.A. No. 3712/M/2008.
-
2009 (12) TMI 695
Deletion of penalty - nature of expenses- capital expenses or revenue expenses- part of repair & maintenance of plant & machinery and building - Held that:- Disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer by treating part of repairs to building and plant and machinery expenses as capital and hence, it does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This issue was of debatable nature and two views are equally probable. Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2009 (12) TMI 694
Whether petitioner has given false particulars with regard to payment of ₹ 6 lacs?
Held that:- The petitioner, in fact, has made the payment of ₹ 6 lacs as the payment is duly supported by the Bank entries as well as duly receipted challans and hence there is no dispute about the payment of ₹ 6 lacs. If this payment of ₹ 6 lacs is considered then admittedly the balance amount of ₹ 8,737/- remains outstanding and on that basis the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. Thus, the petitioner’s application cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has supplied false information with regard to payment of ₹ 6 lacs.
The impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to issue certificate after verification of the payment of ₹ 6 lacs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 693
Issues involved: Determination of penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, modification application for pre-deposit, waiver of pre-deposit, financial difficulties of the appellant.
Issue 1: Determination of Penalty u/s 78
The Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 50 lakhs out of the penalty amount imposed on them u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant sought a modification for reducing the pre-deposit amount or an extension of time, which was partially granted. The appellant challenged the orders in a Writ Petition before the High Court but later withdrew it with permission to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides regarding the applicability of Section 78 to the case.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 78
In the miscellaneous application, the appellant requested a total waiver of pre-deposit or a reduction to 10% of the penalty amount, arguing that Section 78 is not applicable to their case. They contended that the demand of Service tax was under Section 73A, not Section 73, and thus, no penalty should be imposed u/s 78. However, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Service tax and imposed a penalty u/s 78, stating that the appellant did not challenge the demand under Section 73 in their reply to the show-cause notice. The appellant's argument that their payments were made under Section 73A was considered a new case by the Tribunal.
Issue 3: Financial Difficulties of the Appellant
The appellant claimed financial difficulties and submitted a certificate from their chartered accountant stating their current liabilities. However, the Tribunal found the certificate unsupported by requisite accounts and insufficient to prove the claimed financial hardships. Despite this, the Tribunal granted the appellant 4 weeks to deposit the required amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in the interest of justice.
This judgment highlights the Tribunal's decision regarding the pre-deposit of penalty amount u/s 78, the applicability of the relevant sections of the Finance Act, and the consideration of the appellant's financial situation in the case.
-
2009 (12) TMI 692
Issues involved:
1. Treatment of commission paid to foreign buyers as income.
2. Addition of unexplained creditors under Section 68.
3. Confirmation of lumpsum expense disallowance.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Treatment of commission paid to foreign buyers as income
The case revolved around the dispute regarding the treatment of commission paid by the assessee to foreign buyers as income. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the commission amount to the assessee's income, considering it part of sales. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, citing Section 93 of the Income Tax Act and various case laws. The CIT(A) also applied Section 194H and Section 5 of the Income Tax Act to support the addition. However, the assessee argued that the commission was a discount given through export invoices and that the net proceeds were received, not the gross amount. The ITAT held that the commission adjustment in invoices was permissible under RBI regulations and Export Import Policy. The tribunal concluded that since the assessee received only the net proceeds and not the gross amount, there was no additional income to be accrued, leading to the deletion of the addition.
Issue 2: Addition of unexplained creditors under Section 68
The AO made an addition under Section 68 towards unexplained creditors. However, the ITAT found that the creditors were for goods and services supplied to the assessee, not cash credits. The tribunal noted that the addition was made ad hoc without verifying individual credits, making it unjustified. Consequently, the addition of Rs.11,21,753 was deleted.
Issue 3: Confirmation of lumpsum expense disallowance
The third ground raised by the assessee was against the confirmation of a lumpsum expense amount of Rs.2,00,000 by the CIT(A). The ITAT reviewed the facts and decided not to interfere with the disallowance, ultimately rejecting the ground raised by the assessee.
In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the addition of commission paid to foreign buyers and the addition of unexplained creditors while upholding the confirmation of the lumpsum expense disallowance.
-
2009 (12) TMI 691
Judgment: Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal in 2009 (12) TMI 691 - SC. Justices S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam presided over the case. Petitioner represented by MR. B. Krishna Prasad.
-
2009 (12) TMI 690
The High Court of Patna dismissed a review application related to an Income Tax Act appeal, citing that only an appeal lies under Section-261 of the Act before the Supreme Court. (2009 (12) TMI 690 - PATNA HIGH COURT)
............
|
9911796707
