|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 1359 Records
-
2015 (4) TMI 981
Hundi Discounting charges - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Three conditions had to be satisfied to claim deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital and that the expression "for the purpose of business" under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37 is wider than the expression “for the purpose of earning income, profits and gains” under Section 57(iii). Therefore, it was held that interest paid for the purpose of or in the course of carrying on business is allowable in the year in which the liability arose. This Court is also of the opinion that given the dictates of consistency, the view adopted by the ITAT is fair and reasonable. Having regard to the reasoning adopted by the ITAT, this Court finds no cause to interfere with - as it is in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhav Prasad Jatia’s case (1979 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ). - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Net amount of current assets of the manufacturing division transferred to its subsidiary company - ITAT deleted addition - Held that:- The entire net current assets too were valued and transferred. It was the aggregate of the book value and the net current value which constituted the sale price of ₹ 2,02,40,560/-towards which shares were in fact allotted. Given these facts, the AO appears to have assumed that the other liabilities and assets too had been transferred - which was an inaccurate assumption. The CIT (A) too appears to have ignored this important feature. Given these factors, no fault can be found with the ITAT’s conclusion that regardless of how the assessee treated the transaction, i.e., either reflecting in the P&L account or omitting to do so, in sum, no gain or income arises which can be brought to tax - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Notional interest - ITAT deleted addition - Held that:- As the Revenue urges that no material was placed before the AO to support the contention that the advances were made from the assessee’s own funds and that in these circumstances, the CIT (A) fell into error in considering fresh materials. The submissions appear to be attractive considering that the CIT (A) has stated that the appellant placed before him copies of the relevant bank accounts. However, this Court sitting in second appeal against the decision of the lower authorities has to be circumspect in such matters. This ground does not appear to have been urged before the ITAT articulating that the CIT (A) omitted to give any opportunity to it to re-examine such materials. Such ground also does not appear to have been urged during the hearing. Furthermore, this has not been raised as a ground of appeal before this Court. In the circumstances, we see no reason to depart from the rule of consistency which is also accepted in all the previous years. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Expenditure towards brokerage and commission - Held that:- It is not disputed by the Revenue that for the other years, the assessee’s treatment of such expenses has been in his favour and the Revenue has not chosen to challenge it. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that such expenditure has to be allowed. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 980
Rectification of mistake - powers of Tribunal u/s 254(2) - appeal against the order of tribunal pending before HC - Held that:- Merely because the assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal in an Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the High Court does not mean that the power under section (2) of section 254 cannot be invoked either by the assessee or by the revenue/Assessing Officer. Such a power enables the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and make amendments. That in a given case would not only save precious judicial time of the Tribunal but even of the higher Court. Only when the assessee or the Assessing Officer calls upon the Tribunal to undertake an exercise which is not permissible within the meaning of section (2) of section 254 that the Tribunal can rely on the principle of judicial propriety or its reluctance or refusal to take upon itself the powers of the higher Court of Appeal.
We can understand if the Tribunal had passed an order after considering the application made by the peritioner-assessee on its merits and in accordance with law. However, the refusal of the Tribunal to go ahead and reject the application only on the ground that the petitioner-assessee has invoked the appellate powers of higher Court cannot be sustained. That is contrary to the plain language of the two statutory provisions and which have been brought to our notice. Nothing contrary having been pointed out and such a view of the Tribunal may affect and prejudicially the interest of the revenue that all the more we cannot sustain the impugned order. The Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioners misc. application seeking to invoke the powers under subsection (2) of section 254 shall now be heard by the Tribunal and it shall be decided in accordance with law.
-
2015 (4) TMI 979
Reopening of assessment - non deduction of tds on payment credit to foreign companies, on account of ‘software services‘ - Held that:- In the original assessment, full particulars with respect to “Software License Fees” by the assessee to the foreign companies was disclosed. Not only that the assessee claimed the same as revenue expenditure. The notice was issued under section 143(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer also vide communication / notice dated 12/11/2010 called upon the assessee to furnish necessary documents which include the complete details of “Software License Fees”. The assessee was also directed to furnish relevant documentary evidences to establish and prove that “Software License Fees” is in nature of revenue. The assessee submitted complete details of “Software License Fees” and justified its claim that the “Software License Fees” is in the nature of revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure.
Thus it cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment with respect to Software License Fees paid to foreign companies and therefore, the income chargeable to tax has been escaped due to the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Under the circumstances, the condition precedent for invoking powers under section 147 of the Income Tax Act to initiate reassessment proceedings beyond the period of 4 years are not at all satisfied. Once the case of the assessee is covered by the 1st proviso to section 147 of the Act, the reassessment proceedings beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year would be without any jurisdiction and bad in law, if all material facts are furnished and there remained no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. Thus the impugned reassessment proceedings of reopening assessment for the A.Y. 2007-2008 are hereby terminated. See Niko Resources Ltd. (2014 (9) TMI 892 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) as well as Gujarat Lease Financing Limited (2013 (10) TMI 101 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) - Decided in favaour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 978
Unexplained investment - Treatment to the bottles of liquor - Tribunal treating the bottles of liquor, a consumable article, as a 'valuable article or thing' - whether Tribunal was right in law by denying the relief of ₹ 2,00,000/- on bottles of liquor granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? - Held that:- The learned Tribunal, according to us, applied wrong standards in the matter of appreciation of facts. The case of the assessee that the bottles of liquor were purchased during the foreign tours undertaken by the assessee and his family members was not even attempted to be countered to demonstrate why such explanation was not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory. The fact that the assessee got some bottles of liquor by way of gift has been accepted by the assessing officer. It is sheer misapprehension on the part of the learned Tribunal when they observed that the price at ₹ 2000/- per bottle was not disputed by the assessee. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the CIT (A) quoted above. It is not also a fact that the assessee had failed to offer an explanation. The fact on the contrary is that the assessee did offer an explanation and the circumstantial evidence did not militate against the same. A question of fact has to be considered on the touchstone of probability. The relevant question to ask is "has the assessee been able to probabilize the defence taken by him?" If his defence is a probable defence and the revenue has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the defence is either untrue or is inconsistent with the admitted facts and circumstances of the case that should ordinarily be the end of the matter. The Assessing Officer misdirected himself in holding the assessee liable for an undisclosed income of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- purely on the basis of a guess work that each bottle must have been bought at ₹ 2000/- after having accepted the case of the assessee that "occasional social as well as official gifts can not be ruled out." Liquor after all is a consumable item and a person of ordinary prudence is not expected to preserve the cash memos in connection therewith.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) applied the correct standard for appreciation of facts - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 977
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - borrowing/advances towards ancestral share in the property not proved - Tribunal confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting penalty - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal by the impugned order have accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee. Consequently holding that inability to prove a liability would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-Revenue has proceeded on the basis that there was in fact a sale of property as is evident from the fact that the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22/03/2012 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2007-08. This notice for reopening dated 22/03/2012 is identical to the basis of the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee viz. that there was a sale of property which resulted in the Assessee being paid ₹ 92.00 lakhs. Thus, there is no reason shown to us to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal . No substantial question of law - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 976
Charitable purpose - Non applicability of section 2(15) - whether advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose? - Held that:- The motive of the assessee is not the generation of profit but to provide training to the needy women in order to equip or train them in these fields and make them self confident and self reliant. There is nursing training, which is also being managed and administered by the assessee. The details of income and expenditure accounts shows that the assessee had received donation of ₹ 36,88,634/- and nursing school fees of ₹ 4,46,088/-. The assessee pointed out that this nursing training provided at the centre of the assessee at Panvel is free of costs.
Once the essential nature of the activities carried on by trust is considered, then, the larger question need not be decided. The Tribunal found that the trust may be set up for advancement of any other object of general public utility, but that will not cease to be charitable purposes in this case, because, the activities in which the trust is involved cannot be termed as carrying on of trade, commerce or business. This is to impress upon the women the need to be self reliant and self supporting and to instill in them the confidence that they can make a livelihood for themselves if they rely on the skills as afore-noted, that the activity has been undertaken. It does not partake the character of trade, commerce or business nor of rendering of any service in relation thereto. It is only to teach or impart skills and to instill confidence that the produced goods or articles are sold. To that extent also deficit has occurred. In the circumstances, the Tribunal took a view that occasional sales or the trust's own fund generation are for furthering the objects but not indicative of trade, commerce or business. In the circumstances, the proviso does not apply.
Trust has been set up and is functional for the past several decades and it has not deviated or departed from any of its state object and purpose, utilisation of the income, if at all generated, does not indicate carrying on of any trade, commerce or business. The Tribunal's view deserves to be upheld. It is a possible view and cannot be termed as perverse - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 975
Commercial expediency - whether the amount paid by the assessee in terms of the decree passed by the Bombay High Court falls within the words 'commercial expediency' and therefore entitled to deduction? - Held that:- The amount paid by the company in terms of a decree passed by the High Court cannot be construed as either prohibited by law or is an offence. Even if the assessee was in no way benefited by the said transaction and even if the Managing Director without the authority has bound the assessee and when once a decree is passed by a competent Court, there is a threat to the business of the company. If the decretal amount is not paid, the decree holder could have executed the decree against the property of the company; could have attached the property of the company and the creditors in the alternative also could have filed for winding up of the company. In those circumstances, to avoid such legal complications, if the decretal amount is paid, it cannot be construed that there was no 'commercial expediency' in payment of such amount. All the appellate authorities on careful consideration of the entire material on record has rightly held that the said expenditure falls within Section 37 of the Act and rightly directed the assessing authority to delete the said amount. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 974
Assessment u/s 158BD - assessment of other person who was not searched - Tribunal found that the assessee did not co-operate with the Assessing Officer by filing a block return and did not furnish any information and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the assessment to the best of judgment. - Held that:- The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] clearly specifies that section 158BC prescribes the procedure for making block assessment of the searched person and section 158BD enables assessment of any person, other than the searched person.section 158BC prescribes the procedure for making block assessment of the searched person and section 158BD enables assessment of any person, other than the searched person. In this case, we have no hesitation to hold that searched person is M/s. Harbour Syndicate and, therefore, as far as M/s. Harbour Syndicate is concerned, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 158BC and in respect of V. H. Yahiya, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice under section 158BD. The question of law raised in this regard is answered in favour of the Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 973
Addition on account of concealment of income - Rejection of books of account - AO observed Variation in the rates of bullion in a single day - Estimated the profit @ 0.5% of the total turnover of pure gold - Held that:- We find that the average gross profit as a percentage of turnover of Pure Gold was less than 0.098% as returned by the assessee for the current A.Y except for the assessment year 2008-09 where the gross profit return was 0.1%. In view of the consistent profitability of the assessee is less than the percentage offered for this year (except for a marginal increase in the AY 2008-09), no specific circumstances was brought to our notice by the Revenue for adopting a higher rate of gross profit as adopted by the AO or the CIT (A). Therefore, we allow the cross objection filed by the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 972
Computation of Capital gain - Disallowing the claim of the assessee as 'slump sale' - No evidence on records to show entries regarding transfers of current assets & liabilities - Held that:- The assessee put a contention that the he had sold all the assets and liabilities including current assets and liabilities in respect of business of processing of profile grinding operations to M/s. S.R.P. Tools Limited and being so it is considered as “slump sale’’. If the argument of the assessee is correct there should be transfer of inventories, sundry debtors, cash and bank balances, interest receivable, loans and advances and also current liabilities and provisions. However, in the present case, assessee has not placed any evidence to suggest the current assets and liabilities has been transferred to purchaser by passing appropriate entries in its books of accounts. If this current assets have been transferred the assessee should have furnished the details of the same.
Being so, in our opinion evidence brought on record does not clearly suggest that this is 'slump sale'. Hence, it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the books of accounts of the assessee so as to verify whether all the assets and liabilities including current assets and liabilities have been duly transferred to the purchaser as per MOU dated 03.10.2005 and also examine relevant parties herein including the person who has issued certificate in form No.3CEA dated 02.11.2006. With these observations, we are remitting the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. - Appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2015 (4) TMI 971
Waiver of pre-deposit - Out-door catering services - benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST - Held that:- whether the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST and whether the extended period of time under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 is invokable to the petitioner's case are disputed questions of fact and the same could be raised before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), as the petitioner has remedy of filing appeal against the order-in-original. This Court is of further view that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order impugned and the procedures stipulated in Finance Act, 1994 has been thoroughly followed. Thus, the petitioner is bound to pay 7.5% of the total service tax demand of ₹ 63,79,561/- at the time of filing of appeal before the CESTAT. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the levy itself is unwarranted and as such the mandatory payment will cause undue hardship to them. In my considered view, in terms of the provisions of the Act, payment of 7.5% of the total tax demand is mandatory and that cannot be reduced by this Court and further, the petitioner could raise all the points raised before this Court before the CESTAT to substantiate its case. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 970
Demand of service tax - Jurisdiction error - No service provided - Held that:- The authority, after taking note of the submissions of the petitioner, and taking into account the commission received, in para 25 of the order and after verifying the invoices, came to the conclusion that DLF is the customer and the invoices raised by the noticee also confirm that the noticee received commission from the nominees of DLF - Since a finding rendered by the authority cannot be stated that it is a jurisdictional aspect to be interfered by this court and it is based on the facts of the case, the authority has rendered a finding, merely because the petitioner will have to shell out more than 7.5 lakhs, it cannot be a ground to exercise to interfere with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only in rarest of the rare cases, the court will have to interfere with the decision quoted by the petitioner and the relevant portion is reflected in para 8 of the decision of the Apex Court. Since in this case, the decision taken by the respondent cannot be said to be against the provision of law and there is an arbitrary action without sanction of law - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 969
Availment of wrongful CENVAT Credit - After being informed assessee reversed the credit - Non maintenance of separate books of accounts - whether the petitioner would have to deposit the amount of 7.5% of the tax confirmed against him, as a condition for pursuing the appellate remedy before the Tribunal - Held that:- petitioner, in whose case also the lis commenced in 2013, would not be required to deposit the amount of 7.5%, as required pursuant to the 2014 amendment, and in that respect, he would have an efficacious alternate remedy before the Tribunal where he can file an appeal, together with an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Ext.P6 order. At the time of filing the appeal, he will not be required to make any payment as a pre-condition for the hearing of the waiver application by the Tribunal. I, therefore, relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended, of approaching the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal against Ext.P6 order. It is made clear that the appeal to be filed by the petitioner would be governed by the statutory provisions, as they stood prior to the amendment introduced with effect from 16.08.2014. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 968
Competence of the Controller and Auditor General of India [CAG] / Departmental Audit Committee to look into the accounts of a private assessee - Validity of Rule 5A - Held that:- CAG has a duty to examine and satisfy itself that all the Rules and procedures, in respect of Telecom Service Providers in revenue sharing contracts with the State, are being met by the service providers as a whole. - although in the context of cases involving natural resources, a right was recognized in the CAG to audit the accounts of private persons who were obliged to make payments to the Central Government pursuant to contracts entered into with the Central Government. In the light of the said judgment, I am not inclined to stay the operation of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, for the time being. However, as the petitioners want to have the said issue examined before this Court, the writ petitions are admitted solely for the purposes of examining, in detail, the contentions regarding the validity of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules. - prayer of the petitioners to grant a stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the show cause notices issued to them by the respondents, is not granted and the petitioners are relegated to the alternate remedy of pursuing the show cause notices before the authorities under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended. The writ petitions are admitted only for the purpose of examining the issue of validity of Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 967
Reimbursements of service tax from the recipient of services - terms of the contract agreement - service recipient refused to reimburse by letter dated 21.10.2010 - Held that:- True, it is that the service provider has the right to collect the said tax from the person to whom service is provided but so far as the Excise and Service Tax Department is concerned, it holds the provider of service as liable to pay the service tax. There is no provision in the said Act for recovery or reimbursement of any service tax by the service tax provider from the person to whom the service is provided. Thus, it is the liability of service provider to pay the service tax arising in the course of the provision of service and to provide for its collection in the contract which it enters into with the person who is recipient of the service.
Provisions of Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 cannot be applied to the provision of any service and the liability for tax thereupon as the said provision is specifically confined to the payment of tax in respect to any taxable events in relation to goods and not with regard to services. The taxes, in fact, have been specified as duty of Customs or Excise and any tax on the sale or purchase of goods. The service tax evidently is not upon any contract for sale of goods. It is purely leviable on a contract for provision of service. - More over even in Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 liability of benefit of imposition of new tax or increase or decrease in taxes is subject to there being a different intention appearing from the terms of the contract and the same is not absolute. It is only when the contract is silent on the point that the benefit of liability for increase or decrease on the price of goods on account of such taxes will have to go to the respective party.
Service tax was not leviable at the relevant time on works contract (when the contract was excuted) but the same would also be deemed to have been included in view of the clear provision that the rate should be inclusive of direct or indirect elements. Thus, the said provision can only be interpreted to mean that any future increase or decrease of tax or levy of a new tax with regard to item of the contract would be entirely to the benefit or be the liability of the contractor and the same would not have any effect on the rates and service. There does not appear to be any ambiguity in the said provisions. The provisions, in fact, go further to show that it was the tenderer's duty to get it clarified before submitting the tender and thereafter there would be no scope for any doubt or ambiguity regarding non-inclusion of any ingredient of work in the rate.
Since service tax had become leviable from 1.6.2007, for the period after 1.6.2007 the liability for the same would fall upon the petitioners and it is not open to the petitioners to claim any such refund from the respondent-Board in the absence of any agreement to the contrary or any provision in the Finance Act, 1994 with respect to the same. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 966
Classification of goods - levy of VAT @ 4% or taxable @ 12.5% in terms of Section 4(1)(e) - Held that:- The expression “Handicrafts”, not specially defined for purposes of DVAT Act, cannot take a meaning other than the one explained by the interpretation given to it in the context of another fiscal statute viz. the Central Excise Act. The tests to be applied, for present purposes, must thus be the same as were evolved in the case of Louis Shoppe (1995 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). - no hesitation in concluding that a product in order to qualify as “Handicrafts” for the purposes of application of entry no.128 of the third schedule to DVAT, must have been made “predominantly by hand” and it would be inconsequential if some part of the process involves use of some machinery. Needless to add, such product must be one “graced with artistic visual appeal” resultant upon substantial (not a mere pretence) ornamentation or in-lay or some similar work adding to it elements of artistic improvement.
Expression “Handicrafts” used in entry no.128 of the third schedule to DVAT Act must be construed in its plain lexical sense, without any colour being added by extraneous factors. - The fact that “Baldi” items are imported from Italy seems to have been considered by both authorities, the Commissioner and the Tribunal, as a factor which clinches the issue. There is nothing in the DVAT Act, or the Rules framed therein or, for that matter, any other instruction, notification etc. to require that a commodity in order to be accepted as “Handicrafts” must be one indigenously made or, to put it conversely, must not be one imported into India. We have concluded earlier that the expression “Handicrafts” has to be construed in the sense it is commonly understood. Since the legislative entry does not qualify it by any other pre-requisites, the restrictive interpretation put on it by the authorities below (based on the fact that it is imported from Italy) cannot be approved.
The revenue did not refute, either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the claim that the “Baldi” items, in which the appellant deals, are predominantly made by hand. There is no dispute that they are items graced with visual appeal, on account of ornamentation or inlay work carried out skilfully by expert artisans. For these reasons, they do qualify as “Handicrafts” on the twin tests laid down in the case of Louis Shoppe (1995 (3) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) which hold good for the purpose of entry no.128 of the third schedule to DVAT Act. - if the facts cover the case under a specific provision, the residuary clause would not apply. Since, in our judgment, entry no.128 of the third schedule governs the commodity in question, there is no question of invoking the residual category specified under Section 4(1)(e). - goods sold under the brand name of “Baldi”, as described above, fall in the category of “Handicrafts” within the meaning of the expression used in entry no.128 of the third schedule of DVAT Act and, therefore, chargeable to VAT at the rate applicable to the said third schedule. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 965
Adjustment of carried forward input tax credit - whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in declaring and holding that an assessee/dealer is entitled to the Input Tax Credit adjustment against its output tax liability under the VAT Act under the current year under consideration and whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the first Appellate Authority in directing to carry forward such Input Tax Credit to the next subsequent year - Held that:- Following decision of State of Gujarat Versus Cosmos International Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 779 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 964
Interest charged under Section 47(4)(a) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act - Penalty u/s 45(6) - Held that:- For the reasons stated in the said order and even otherwise, considering the provisions of Section 47(4)(a), it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in deleting the interest levied for the period between the payment of tax on ad-hoc basis till the order of assessment - once the dealer has made payment before the actual order of assessment, may be on ad-hoc basis, meaning thereby, the amount of tax due and payable as per the assessment order, already paid prior to the assessment order and the State/Department received the said amount of tax, there cannot be any interest levied during the aforesaid period. It cannot be disputed that levy of interest would be on delayed payment of tax due and payable. It is not the case that on finalization of the assessment, any amount more than the amount paid on ad-hoc basis, was assessed and/or required to be paid by the assessee. - No substantial question of law arises in this group of appeals - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 963
Classification - Applicable rate of tax - whether the windscreen glasses sold by the assessee fall under Entry 11 Part E of the I Schedule, taxable at 12% or under Entry 43(ii) of Part D of I Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, taxable at 8% - Held that:- reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner appears to be more appropriate in the facts of the present case, who has applied the user theory, more particularly in a case where the goods sold is specifically parts and accessories of motor vehicles - It is to be noted that Entry 43(ii) of Part D of First Schedule includes bulbs, which is also made of glass. Therefore, the distinction is that the goods forming parts and accessories of motor vehicle would fall under Entry 43(ii) of Part D of First Schedule, taxable at 8%, in contrast to usual glass and glassware in Entry 11 of Part E of First Schedule of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - In the instant case also, Entry 43(ii) of Part D of I Schedule specifically deals with parts and accessories of motor vehicle, while Entry 11 of Part E of I Schedule deals with general glass and glasswares. When there is a specific entry in the statute, the same should be applied while making the assessment. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a dealer in automobile glasses and has supplied their goods to the automobile manufacturers - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 962
Restoration of appeal - Non deposit pre deposit ordered - Held that:- if we direct the Tribunal to accept the "pre-deposit amount" as deposited by the appellants and hear the appeal on merits, it will not cause any prejudice to either side - Tribunal directed to accept the "pre-deposit amount" paid by the appellants, which is in compliance with its earlier order and then decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law and without reference to the period of limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
