|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1359 Records
-
2015 (4) TMI 1001
Disallowance of the benefit of payment of tax at compounded rates under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 - petitioner had effected inter-state purchases - Held that:- When respondent has accepted the contention of the petitioner that all the purchases were effected locally, still proceeded to levy tax on a new reasoning that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence for having exercised the option to pay tax at compounded rates, which was not there in the show cause notice, cannot be said to be correct in law and hence the impugned order has got to be interfered with. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1000
Classification of goods - Clarification of the rate of tax applicable - Whether the commodities (a) to (e) namely, Vegit-Aloo hara bara kebab, vegit aloo veg cutlet, vegit aloo yummy cheese balls, vegit mazedar bonda and vegit aloo jatpat tikki, are covered by Entry 3 to the third Schedule of the Act attracting levy of tax @ 4% or falls under the residuary entry, liable to be taxed at a higher rate - Held that:- While construing the provisions relating to commodity classification, the understanding of the commodity in its popular and commercial sense, the predominant test, has to be applied. Applying the said test, it could be construed that the commodities in question are understood in common parlance or trade parlance, as snack mix - a different commercial commodity from that of dehydrated potato flakes. It is settled principle of law that an entry in a fiscal statute has to be read as it is. Nothing could be added to enlarge the meaning of the entry. "Processed vegetables" denotes the ordinarily understanding of the phrase by a common man. Normally, 'processed vegetables' can be accepted as an alternative to 'fresh vegetables'. The 'processed vegetables' generally available in the market are in different forms viz., canned, frozen, dried, juiced. The benefits of these processed vegetables and fruits is for convenience, longer shelf life and availability around the year. - The commodities (a) to (e) referred to above are classified as, 'commodities falling under residuary entry to the Act and exigible to the appropriate rate of tax applicable thereon' and do not fall under Entry 3 of Third Schedule to the Act - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 999
Denial of input tax credit - Demand of differential tax - Held that:- Tax Board, after appreciation of evidence and factual finding, has come to the conclusion that the assessee sold goods to the ultimate consumers on discounted amount and it was none of the business of the Revenue to interfere in the affairs of the assessee. Even if the assessee sells goods at a loss at least revenue should not have grudge or concern. It is also not debarred under the sales tax law and/or VAT law to sell the goods below the invoice value. Once a whole seller has issued an invoice , then Input Tax Credit is allowable as per VAT invoice alone and the same requires to be allowed to the assessee. - sales tax law does not debar if the assessee chooses to sell the goods keeping in view the prospective discount or rebate which may be received by the assessee and in passing the same to the consumer on account of the business expediency or otherwise. - Tax Board has basically come to a finding based on the appreciation of evidence on record and I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 998
Prosecution proceedings where demand of duty was set aside on the ground of period of limitation - non-petitioners were discharged mainly on the ground that separate proceedings for imposition of penalty were decided in favour of the non-petitioners - Held that:- Perusal of Section 11 of the Act of 1944 shows as to when and for what purpose, it can be invoked. It is for recovery of excise duty which is not paid for various reasons or could not be recovered. Section 11 of the Act of 1944, however imposes limitation for initiation of the proceedings. In the first category of cases, limitation to issue notice is only of 6 months, whereas in the second category, it is for 5 years. So far as Section 9 of the Act of 1944 is concerned, it operates for the offences and consequential penalties. No limitation for initiation of prosecution has been given therein. The facts aforesaid are relevant as proceedings in pursuance to Section 11 of the Act of 1944 were terminated as the notice was found beyond the period of limitation for recovery of excise duty. The Tribunal found case to be falling in first category having limitation of 6 months and not in second category having limitation of 5 years. The order was passed in favour of the assessee after recording finding on the issue of limitation, thus it becomes clear that determination of the issues by the Tribunal was not on merit but on limitation. It may be that arguments were made even on merit but no finding has been recorded, if the order of the Tribunal is perused.
Determination of issue by the Tribunal is not on merit but on a technical ground of limitation. The same is the position regarding reference whether determination of the issue was not made but reference was dismissed on account of default in appearance of the parties concerned. - In absence of determination of issues on merit, the non-petitioner cannot take shelter of judgment of Apex Court in the case of K.C. Builders (2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court). In the instant case, Section 9 of the Act of 1944 does not provide any limitation to initiate the proceedings though there may be limitation for taking cognizance of offence under Cr.P.C. The issue aforesaid is not raised before me. When the Tribunal so as High Court has not touched the merit, there was no reason for the revisional court to discharge the non-petitioners by setting aside the order of learned Magistrate. The non-petitioners were definitely entitled to take the benefit of delay in issuance of notice for recovery of excise duty if It was beyond the period of limitation. So far as prosecution under Section 9 of the Act is concerned, it has not provided limitation. The revisional court failed to make distinction between two proceedings and the effect of the order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court where merit of the case was not touched. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 997
Waiver of pre deposit - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has jurisdiction to put a condition of depositing ₹ 40 lakhs while remanding the issue back to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh adjudication - Held that:- Tribunal has dealt with the merits of the case at length, and held that there was no discussion or evidence available on record to show excess consumption of raw material and electricity, or any other material to show that the appellant removed the products clandestinely. It has also been recorded in the impugned order that in the audit which was conducted, no discrepancy was found in the records of the company. The Tribunal has also held that there was no indication to show that there was excess consumption of raw material, or there was misdeclaration of consumption by the appellant. After giving a detailed finding of fact that the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the various evidences which were led, and that no proper opportunity of cross-examination or hearing was afforded to the appellant, the Tribunal has set-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority which had imposed liability of over ₹ 26.00 crores on the appellant.
It is clear that though for setting-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and remanding the case for fresh decision, sufficient reasons have been given, but no reason, whatsoever, has been given for imposing a precondition of deposit of ₹ 40.00 lakhs by the appellant. There is even no justification for quantifying the amount ₹ 40 lakhs to be deposited by the appellant. - Tribunal may, for some specific and valid reason, have the jurisdiction to impose the condition of deposit of certain amount while remanding the case back to the Adjudicating Authority, but the same can be done only in a judicious manner and not in arbitrary manner and without justification. In the present case, the same is totally lacking. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 996
CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - entire investigation was conducted under impression that it is not commercially viable for any manufacturer to manufacture copper scraps out of copper ingots/ wires/ bars - transporters had not availed to route through RTO check post - Held that:- Probative value of the document needs to be established by independent corroboration. In the said case, the Tribunal set-aside the demand of duty and observed that there being a conspicuous absence of actual diversion of the goods in the domestic market and flow-back of funds; a demand of duty cannot be sustained on the basis of mere statements made by the transporters of goods. In the present case, we have already stated that there is absence of evidence of the huge quantity of material of 103 consignments were sold in the open market, flow back of funds, etc. In such situation, CENVAT Credit can not be denied, on the basis of statements of the transporter, evidence of third party and the goods were not transported through the check post.
As per Section 14AA, if the Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that the credit of duty availed of or utilized under the rules made under this Act by a manufacturer of any excisable goods; has been availed of or utilized by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts; he may direct such manufacturer to get the accounts of his factory, office, depot, distributor or any other place, as may be specified by him, audited by a cost accountant or Chartered accountant nominated by him. The cost accountant or Chartered accountant so nominated shall, within the period specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise, submit a report of such audit duly signed and certified by him to the said Commissioner mentioning therein such other particulars as may be specified. The manufacturer shall be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of the audit and proposed to be utilized in any proceeding under this Act or rules made thereunder.
Adjudicating authority had not directed to get the account of Appellant would be audited by a Cost Accountant or a Chartered Accountant as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. On the other hand, the appellant produced Cost certificate, Chartered Accountant certificate of utilization of input in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the contention of the Adjudicating authority on this issue cannot be accepted. - demand of duty along with interest and penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 995
Imposition of penalty - Whether the penalty under Rule 26 on the co-appellant can be waived if main appellant against whom duty interest and penalty has been confirmed, has paid duty, interest and 25% penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11A(2) - Held that:- Immunity provided under the proviso is available to only those persons to whom the notice is issued under Section 11A(1A). In the present case penalty on the appellant was proposed in the notice and imposed in the impugned order under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore the appellant is not covered under the category of the "other persons" as mentioned, under the proviso. Therefore in my view the immunity provided under the proviso is not applicable to the present appellant. From the said proviso, I am of the opinion that the term "person" and "any other persons" used in the proviso under Section 11A(2) means if in any case in the common show cause notice, if the duty demand was raised against more than one person under Section11A(1A) and duty interest and 25% of penalty proposed in the show cause notice is paid by both the person then against those both the persons proceedings will stand concluded, but if any other person on whom only penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, or any other person is proposed then the proviso to Section 11A(2) is not applicable - However, considering the fact that total amount of duty confirmed is ₹ 2,79,803/- and also on the fact that entire duty, interest and 25% of penalty has been paid by the main appellant. I am of the view that the personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on the appellant is higher side, therefore I reduce penalty of ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 25,000 - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vs. Anand Agrawal [2013 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 994
Cenvat Credit - Bogus invoices - Burden of proof - Held that:- Assessee is required to find out while taking Cenvat Credit to ensure that the input on which Cenvat Credit is taken, the relevant document is accompanied by them or not. Admittedly, in this case the appellant is able to produce the invoice against which appellant has availed Cenvat Credit and same has been entered in their RG -23 Register. Therefore, the burden cast on the revenue to prove that this is only a paper transaction and goods have not been received by the appellant at all. To ascertain this fact that appellant has not received the goods. The statement of transporter is very much relevant to find out the truth. Moreover, investigation at the end of investigation, manufacturer supplier also reveal the truth whether the manufacture supplier has supplied the goods to the appellant through the registered dealer or not. - appellant has produced invoice on the strength of which they have availed Cenvat Credit and the goods have been entered in their RG -23 register and same has been supported by the weightment slips which were produced by the appellant before the authorities below. When these material evidence are on record then the burden of not receiving the goods by the appellant shifts on the revenue which revenue failed to do so. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 993
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Commissioner (A) held that as appellant has failed to produce any tangible evidence that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment - Held that:- On perusal of the calculation sheet provided by the appellant and the invoices we find that while granting discount to their customers, the appellant included the prices reduction plus duty component and same has been ignored by the lower authorities while examining their refund claim. In these circumstances, we hold that it is the fact in record which is evident that the appellant has been able to prove that they have not recovered excess duty from their customers. Therefore, we hold that appellant has discharged the burden of unjust enrichment and consequently, is entitled for refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 992
Clandestine removal of goods - imposition of penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- Excess stock of 259.50 KG of Supari, 690.20 KG of Gutkha and 4039 KG of Packing material by itself cannot be treated as an evidence of unaccounted manufacture of clearance of Kimti Brand Gutkha by RPPL during the period to which the entries in the notebook recovered from Shri Manoj Gupta pertaining for that period, there is no evidence of unaccounted purchase of principal raw material like Supari etc. As regards, the recovery of cash of ₹ 17,64,870/- from the residential premises of Shri Babu Lal Maqkhija and Shri Hira Lal Makhija and recovery of cash of ₹ 19 lakh from the residential premises of Shri Harish Makhija, in both the cases the stand of the appellant has been that this cash was meant for purchase of some property and was not for the sale proceeds of unaccounted Gutkha. In any case, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Pandit DP Sharma reported in [2003 (5) TMI 507 - SUPREME COURT] the onus to prove that the currency represented sale proceeds of the clandestinely removed goods in on the department and it is the department which has to lead cogent evidence in this regard. But there is no such evidence. Therefore, the currencies recovered from the residential premises of Shri Babu Lal Makhija/Hira Lal Makhija Delhi and from the residential premises of Shri Harish Kumar Makhija -Kanpur cannot be held to be sale proceeds towards the clandestinely cleared goods.
Merely on the basis of the entries in the notebook recovered from Shri Manoj Gupta under the heading of Kimti coupled with his statement, it cannot be concluded that those entries represent clandestine clearances of the consignments of Kimti Brand Gutkha by RPPL and on this basis duty demand of ₹ 57,51,000/- cannot be confirmed against RPPL. In this regard, we are supported by the judgements of the Tribunal in the cases of Charriot Cement Company vs. CCE (2003 (1) TMI 213 - CEGAT, KOLKATA) and Hira Enterprises and others vs. CCE Belgaon (2011 (5) TMI 896 - CESTAT BANGALORE), wherein it has been held that merely on the basis of the Railway receipts without being corroborated by other independent evidence like unaccounted procurement of raw material, unaccounted manufacture, the duty demand cannot be confirmed against the assessee. In this case, even the railway receipts under which the consignments of Kimti Brand Gutkha are alleged to have been clandestinely cleared, had been booked are also not on record and it is not known as to whether the RR numbers mentioned in the notebook of Shri Manoj Gupta under the heading Kimti represent the actual railway receipt or not. Therefore, the duty demand of Rs, 57,51,000/- against the RPPL is not sustainable.
Since, the duty demand is not sustainable against RPPL, there is no question of imposition of penalty on Shri Hira Lal Makhija and Shri Harish Kumar Makhija under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule 2002 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 991
Condonation of delay - Change in office address - Held that:- Any dismissal of appeal at the threshold may turn an meritorious appeal into demeritious. So also the appellant shall be deprived of principles of natural justice. While we appreciate the principle laid down by apex court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs MST Katiji and others - [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court] and in N.Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy - [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and the reason stated in the dates and events chart filed by appellant, it does not appeal to the common sense how a litigant could be silent after participation in a proceeding without being for vigilant of outcome of the proceeding to act expeditiously for redressal of any wrong done to him. In the absence of vigilant attitude of the appellant, it is not possible to allow the application for condonation of delay for which that is dismissed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 990
Refund claim - Reassessment - Whether re-assessment can be permitted at the refund stage when the order of assessment is final and not appealed against or not - Held that:- New notification is pressed into service, at a belated stage, for claiming refund of the excess duty paid and without challenging the order of assessment. The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable as we find that a new plea is taken at the time of refund by placing reliance on Notification No.18/2000-Cus. The assessment made in the Bill of entry is totally a different claim from the one made in the refund application. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the 1st respondent, having not challenged the order of assessment, cannot at a belated stage, claim refund by pressing into service another Notification and, therefore, the rejection of the refund claim by the Assessing Officer and rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly sustainable. - decision of the Supreme Court in Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. case [2000 (8) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Priya Blue Industries case (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 989
Benefit of concessional rate of duty - Imports from Srilanka under the Indo-Srilanka Free Trade Agreement - Held that:- Respondent authorities have not, in the impugned communications, referred to any instances of defaults or irregularities in the imports effected by the petitioners. The sole reason, on the basis of which a provisional assessment is contemplated, is the fact that there are investigations currently under way in respect of certain other imports of betel nuts,at Cochin. - mere existence of an investigation in respect of other persons cannot be the basis for a detention of goods that have been imported by the petitioners, more so, in a case where the respondent authorities have not been able to identify any irregularity in the imports effected by the petitioners. I do take note, however, of the fact that, the investigation that is currently underway is essentially one that is undertaken to determine whether there is any irregularity in the certificates issued by the Government of Srilanka, to support the contention of the importers that they are entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of duty. In that sense, therefore, there is an interest of the revenue, that needs to be protected while permitting clearance of imported consignments of arecanut. - on the petitioners complying with the aforesaid conditions, which are in modification to the conditions specified in Exts.P6 and P7 communications, the respondent authorities shall forthwith release the imported consignments to the petitioners. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 988
Denial of refund claim - SAD - Notification No. 102/2007 dt. 14.9.2007 - Bar of limitation - Held that:- As far as filing of refund claims within the statutory time limit but filed before the wrong authority is concerned, the issue already stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Singh International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai and Polyglass Acrycle Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2015 (4) TMI 937 - CESTAT MUMBAI], in which reliance was placed on the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd [2010 (9) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]. Therefore, refund of ₹ 2,58,412/- is allowed. - As regards the remaining 2 Bills of Entry in which the refund claim was filed beyond the period of 1 year the refund is rejected, in view of the statutory time limit laid in the law. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 987
Application for sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391(2) & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 - No objection received from any of the party i.e. Regional Director, Northern Region, and the Official Liquidator - Held that:- Considering the approval accorded by the equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation and the affidavits filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, and the Official Liquidator not raising any objection to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, there appears to be no impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme of Amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company will comply with the statutory requirements in accordance with law. Certified copy of this order be filed with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days. It is also clarified that this order will not be construed as an order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty as payable in accordance with law. Upon the sanction becoming effective from the appointed date of Amalgamation, i.e. 1st April, 2014, the transferor company shall stand dissolved without undergoing the process of winding up. - Scheme of amalgamation approved.
-
2015 (4) TMI 986
Application for Scheme of Amalgamation - Dispensation of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors - Held that:- The transferor company has 02 equity shareholders. Both the equity shareholders have given their consents/no objections in writing to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation. Their consents/no objections have been placed on record. They have been examined and found in order. In view thereof, the requirement of convening the meeting of the equity shareholders of the transferor company to consider and, if thought fit, approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation is dispensed with. There is no secured or unsecured creditor of the transferor company, as on 11th March, 2015. - Scheme of Amalgamation approved.
-
2015 (4) TMI 985
Detention of petitioner - Prevention of smuggling of goods - Held that:- Detaining authority, after passing the detention order dated 27th February, 1989 was indifferent in securing the detenu by not taking proper action with great caution. It further appears that the police authorities of the Respondent No.4 were also not prompt in their action in executing the said detention order and the execution of the said detention order was unduly delayed, which allowed the detenu to remain at large for a long period and has consequently defeated the very purpose of the impugned order. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to satisfactorily explain the delay occurred in executing the order of detention after a lapse of abut 26 years. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of P.U. Iqbal (1991 (12) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT), the delay throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently renders the detention order bad and invalid because of the 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed thereby setting at liberty the detenu forthwith - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (4) TMI 984
Re-auction of property - default committed by the Plaintiff in payment of the balance sale consideration/bid amount - Defendant Bank proceeded to forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit made - permanent injunction - whether a suit against the measures taken under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable has once again attracted the attention of this Court - Held that:- Defendant in the auction notice and in terms of the conditions of the auction has not disclosed or suppressed the factum of there being an attachment of the Income Tax Department on the secured asset. The plaint does not contain any complicated facts leading to the case of fraud or how the action of the Defendant Bank is fraudulent. There are therefore no complicated issues of fact which are to be tried. It would have to be borne in mind that the auction was on “as is where is basis” and “as is what is basis”. The intending participant in the said auction is therefore expected to make necessary inquiries if one can say so having regard to the general practice adopted at the time of auction. In fact in the instant matter the Plaintiff in Paragraph 6 of the plaint accepts the position that the attachment of the Income-Tax Department does not mean that there is a bar for the sale of the said property which is under attachment.
In so far as the conduct of the auction is concerned, Rule 8 applies and in terms of clause (f) thereof the authorized officer is required to disclose any other thing which the authorized officer considers it material for a purchaser to know. Hence assuming that there was a non-disclosure by the Defendant of the attachment of the Income¬Tax Department at the time of auctioning the secured assets, the same at the highest may amount to the auction being conducted in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002, and for the said reason also the instant suit does not fall within the exception carved out by Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s case (2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).
Rules of 2002 are mandatory in nature and if the requirements of the Rules have not been waived by the borrower, the consequences would have to follow. As indicated above, in the instant case though it has been alleged against the Defendant that the sale was carried out without disclosing the attachment of the Income¬Tax Department, the Plaintiff has thereafter alleged that the re¬auction is sought to be carried out by deceit and in criminal breach of trust as a right has already been created in favour of the Plaintiff by virtue of the acceptance of the offer of the Plaintiff in the first auction. As observed in the earlier part of this order, non-disclosure of the fact of there being an attachment of the Income¬Tax Department, assuming it be so, can at the highest amount to the breach of clause (f) of Rule 8 and may therefore amount to auction sale being carried out in violation and in breach of the Rules of 2002.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal is therefore vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the measures taken are in accordance with the Act and Rules. Hence apart from the fact that in the light of the averments made in the plaint of the instant suit, they cannot be said to fall in the exception carved out in Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s case (2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). It would also have to be held that in the instant case the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that in the instant case there is no issue which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. - Trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction by coming to a conclusion that the suit filed is maintainable. The impugned order is therefore required to be set aside in the revisionary jurisdiction of this court and is accordingly set aside. It is held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the Plaintiff to take recourse to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and adopt appropriate proceedings before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune. - Appeal not maintainable.
-
2015 (4) TMI 983
Disallowance of businesses expenditure - ITAT allowed the claim - commencement of business - whether assessee has not commenced business operations during the previous year (the assessment year being 2007-08)? Held that:- As decided in Western India Vegetables Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954 (3) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the important question that has got to be considered is from which date are the expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the “previous year‟ and for the purpose of a business the previous year begins from the date of setting up of the business. Therefore, it is only after the business is set up that the previous year of that business commences and in that previous year the expenses incurred in the business can be claimed as permissible deductions. Any expenses incurred prior to setting up a business would obviously not be permissible deductions because those expenses would be incurred at a point of time when the previous years of the business would not have commenced. Thus the decision of the ITAT does not call for any interference - decided against revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 982
Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80-IA - Held that:- The business undertaking of the assessee is wind mill power generation/hosiery goods, etc., and it has claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year in question and for the subsequent years as well. Having exercised its option and its losses have been set off already against other income of the business enterprise, the assessee in this appeal falls within the parameters of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. There appears to be no distinction on facts in relation to the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills case (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court). - Decided in favour of the assessee
............
|
9911796707
