|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1831 Records
-
2017 (5) TMI 1413
Addition of deemed dividend to the extent of reserves and surplus u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- We find that the accounts / documents stated by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee have not been looked into by the AO. The said documents have been cursorily examined by the Ld. CIT(A). These accounts/ documents have a definite bearing on the facts in the instant case. In view of the above, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the same is restored to the file of the AO to make an assessment as per the provisions of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file the details before the AO. Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1412
Addition u/s 68 - proof of creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction - Held that:- Though, the assessee filed copy of the confirmation and copy of the election card of the creditor which may prove identity of creditor but the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness of the creditor. The creditor has no explanation of source of the cash deposited in his bank account Form (J) were filed before the Ld.CIT(A) showing sale proceeds of agricultural produce but these were also not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor because after excluding the expenses incurred for earning agricultural income and household expenses , nothing would be left with the creditor because only Form (J) were filed for ₹ 5,73,843/- only in which also Ld.CIT(A) found certain defects. No other evidence has been produced to prove creditworthiness of the creditor.
Assessee failed to produce the creditor before the AO for examination in order to find out the truth in the matter, therefore, the assessee deliberately withhold the creditor to be produced before the AO for examination. If the assessee was interested in producing the creditor for examination by the income tax authorities, the assessee should have made a request to the Ld.CIT(A) in this respect, therefore, the facts remained that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidences before the authorities below to prove creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. - Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1411
Status of indeterminate trust - charge of tax where share of beneficiaries unknown - "pass through" treatment - Held that:- Admittedly, on the date of institution of the Trust deed, the identities of the contributors/beneficiaries are unknown. Therefore, the assessee trust cannot be held as a Determinate Trust. Further, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee’s AR, vide his letter dated 09.12.2015, has emphasized the assessee is not governed by the provisions of section 10(23FB) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot get “pass through” status. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has held the assessee is an indeterminate trust.
The decision of the Madras High Court in the case CIT v. P. Sekar Trust dated [2009 (4) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because, in it, the beneficiaries are incorporated on the day of institution of the trust deed and moreover, they did not receive any income in that year. Further the individual share of the beneficiaries is ascertainable on the date of the trust. When the beneficiaries have no income to be taxed, then how will the representative assessee become taxable? But in the present case, the names of the beneficiaries are not specified in the trust and the individual shares of the beneficiaries are not ascertainable on the date of the institution of the trust. Therefore, the assessee cannot be categorised itself as a determinate trust and find no reason to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against assessee.
Taxability of interest income in the hands of the assessee - Held that:- Since the Assessing Officer has observed that the above beneficiaries have been transferred to TSGF subsequent to the interest earning period and therefore, the interest income cannot be the income of TSGF. The Assessing Officer has further observed that the interest was earned while the assessee held the entire funds as its own before transfer to TSGF. Hence, the income passed on to TSGF was only application of income earned by the assessee and therefore, the same cannot be allowed as expenditure. The assessee has not filed any details of having transferred the interest income to TSGF so that the assessee cannot be tax on the interest income, which were not retained by it. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly brought to tax the interest income in the hands of the assessee since the transfer of 639 beneficiaries to TSGF was accomplished subsequent to the interest earning period and therefore, interest income cannot be taxed in the hands of TSGF.- Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of 50% of the management expenses - Held that:- By the shifting of substantial portion of the funds to TSGF, during the year, TSGF is also equally benefitted. Hence, in all fairness 50% of such expenses pertain to TSGF and hence the balance portion of 50% of the Management fee of ₹. 40,35,344/- is allowed as expenditure in the hands of the assessee and the balance was brought to tax. Since the expenses required to be shared and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is quite reasonable. The Assessing Officer has given proper reason for making the disallowance, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the above findings of the Assessing Officer with valid reason to take different view. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1410
Receipt of Gift from HUF - income from other sources - whether HUF comes under the term ‘group of relatives’ defined u/s 56(2)? - Held that:- The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Veenit Kumar Rahgavjibhai Bhalodia vs ITO [2011 (5) TMI 584 - ITAT RAJKOT ].
If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, conclusion drawn in the order of the Tribunal, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsels, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that while adjudicating the issue, the Bench duly considered section 56 of the Act and on the question of chargeability of tax on a question whether a gift received from relative held that it is exempt from tax under the provision of section 56(2)(vi) on a question whether HUF is a group of relatives, it was held that the gift received from HUF would be exempt from tax u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. It is noted that in the case before Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal, the amount was received from HUF, where the assessee was also member of HUF. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (5) TMI 1409
Disallowance of payment of royalty - Held that:- An identical issue was considered by this Bench of the Tribunal in Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2016 (8) TMI 1204 - ITAT CHENNAI] as found that the payment was made by the assessee for using logo which belongs to Shriram Ownership trust. Since the payment was made for using the logo which belongs to Shriram Ownership Trust, this Tribunal found that the payment made by the assessee is in the revenue field.
Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that:- The exemption extended to dividend income would relate only to the previous year when the income was earned and none other and consequently the expenditure incurred in connection therewith should also be dealt with in the same previous year. Thus, by application of the matching concept, in a year where there is no exempt income, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to such assumed income. See M/s. Redington (India) Ltd. Versus ACIT [2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]
Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1408
Legality of special audit u/s 142(2A) - no show cause notice issued - Time barred assessment - Held that:- The issue arising in the present appeal is similar to the issue in assessment year 2000-01 and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that since no show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer at predecisional stage of making reference for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act, the assessment had to be completed within period prescribed under the Act i.e. by 31.12.2007. The assessment order in the present case has been passed on 08.08.2008 and the same being beyond the period of limitation, is barred and hence, is held to be invalid. Since the assessment is held to be time barred, then the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee do not survive and the same are dismissed. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed.
Denial of exemption under section 11 - Held that:- There cannot be wholesale denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act for violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the income which is subject matter of violation only, could be brought to tax. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide para 153 onwards considered various violations contemplated under section 13(1)(c) of the Act and allowed exemption under section 11 of the Act subject to the condition that no such exemption would be given in respect of disallowance made for violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Following the same parity of reasoning, ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Whether the activity of assessee is commercial activity with profit motive and it does not exist solely for charity? - Held that:- We have already observed in the paras hereinabove that the findings of Tribunal that the assessee trust does not exist solely for the profit and is not carrying out any commercial activity, if the capital expenditure and the depreciation is consideration as application of income, then the assessee had deficit in each of the years under appeal. Following the same parity of reasoning as held by the Tribunal (supra) in assessee’s own case we allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee.
Entitle the assessee to claim exemption under section 11 - violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) - vehicle maintenance expenses - Held that:- vehicle maintenance expenses are to be allowed to the extent of 50% and the balance is to be disallowed under section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Credit Card expenses disallowed - Held that:- Credit Card expenses are to be allowed to the extent of 50% and the balance is to be disallowed under section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It may be clarified herein itself that the disallowance made under section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act does not entitle the assessee to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act.
Honorarium paid to Shri B E Avhad - Only 50% of the said expenditure merits to be allowed in the hands of assessee and the balance is hit by section 13(1)(c) of the Act and hence, added in the hands of assessee, on which the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act.
Foreign tour expenses are to be disallowed in the hands of assessee.
Scholarship given to Rahul Karad, who is son of Managing Trustee - Held that:- The scholarship paid to the son of Managing Trustee is squarely hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It may be pointed out herein itself that the said person Shri Rahul Karad was not an employee in the relevant year and he had not completed his course, for which scholarship was given to him. He is an associated person of the assessee trust and in view thereof, the expenditure paid by the trust to its associated persons is squarely hit by provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The scholarship paid by the assessee trust to its employees has been allowed in the hands of assessee. However, the present scholarship has been paid to the son of Managing Trustee, who was not employee during the year and hence, the exemption is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold so.
Notional interest on advance made to Shri Rahul Karad - The said interest is due on the loan of ₹ 18 lakhs advanced to Shri Rahul Karad, who was the son Managing Trustee, which is hit by provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Following the same parity of reasoning as in the case of scholarship paid to Shri Rahul Karad, who is not the employee of assessee during the year under consideration, we uphold the interest due on such advances made to Shri Rahul Karad at ₹ 1,27,529/-
Denial of exemption under section 11 - unexplained investment - On-money payment for purchase of land - Held that:- The entries marked as ‘6’ against amount of ₹ 1,07,50,000/-, which was highest figure appearing in the impounded document is the actual consideration paid for purchase of 417 guntas of land. In view of the nature and sequence of entries noted in the said document, the evidence collected by the Assessing Officer and in view of the statement recorded of Shri Jatyan, for which the assessee did not avail opportunity of cross-examination, the cash consideration of ₹ 73,58,000/- being the on-money component in the transaction of purchase of 417 guntas of land at Kelgaon is not recorded in the books of account and hence, is to be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The same is thus, added to the income of assessee, against which the assessee is not entitled to claim any exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) in upholding the addition of ₹ 73,58,000/- is confirmed.
Expenditure connected with the provision made for paying higher salary to the employees as per 5th Pay Commission - Held that:- Issue restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1407
Expenditure on issue of debentures - Allowable revenue expenditure - Held that:- Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Secure Meters Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN ] fairly concluded that debenture when issued is a loan, and, therefore, whether it is convertible or non-convertible, does not militate against the nature of the debenture, being loan, and therefore the expenditure incurred would be admissible as revenue expenditure. Issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of sponsorship charges - Held that:- As find that the claim of assessee was denied for want of evidence of the expenditure incurred on account of sponsorship. During the course of hearing, no evidence is filed before the Tribunal, therefore find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of CIT(Appeals) is confirmed in this regard. - Decided against assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1406
Reopening of assessment - pendency of the block assessment proceedings - Held that:- The Court is satisfied that reopening of the assessment for AYs 1994-95 to 1996-97 by the impugned notices dated 31st May 2001 under Section 148 of the Act during the pendency of the block assessment proceeding was impermissible in law. Having initiated the proceeding under Section 158BC for the block assessment, there was no justification to issue the aforementioned notice under Section 147 of the Act as that would undoubtedly result in parallel proceedings. They are based on the same materials which form subject matter of the block assessment. The impugned notices dated 31st May 2001 are hereby quashed.
As clarified that the Court has not expressed any view on any aspect of the block assessment proceeding or the materials gathered for that purpose and which form the subject matter of the proceedings before the ITSC. By virtue of all the applications filed by the Petitioners having been allowed to be proceeded with by the order 3rd August 2016 of the ITSC, it will be open to the ITSC to examine these aspects in the proceedings pending before it. However, it is also clarified that neither ITSC nor any of the parties to the pending proceedings refer to any part of the notices under Section 147 of the Act or the reasons for such reopening as such notices have been quashed by the present judgment of this Court.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1405
Addition made on account of sale of rice out of books - investment in stock out of undisclosed sources - Addition towards investment in stock of wheat purchased out of books - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal reveals that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts in accordance with the prescribed standard as per Section 145 of 'the Act'. The account books have not been rejected by the assessing officer.
In view of the above, the Tribunal formed an opinion where once the account books are expected to be maintained in the prescribed accounting standard, the assessing officer could not have made any additions towards the sale of rice treating it to be outside the books of accounts or towards investing in stock of rice and wheat outside the books of accounts. The controversy as raised above in this appeal stands duly covered by the Tribunal and it cannot be said that any investment was done beyond the books of accounts. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1404
Deduction u/s 80IB in respect of excise duty rebate/refund - Held that:- Since the issue had been decided on the basis of concession given in Liberty India’s case (2006 (9) TMI 487 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR ) it was argued that in various decisions the relief under Section 80IB of the Act could not be declined on Excise Duty refund and thus, the matter requires to be re-adjudicated. It was prayed by learned counsel for the appellant which could not be effectively controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue that in such circumstances, the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer who shall examine the factual matrix and keeping in view the legal position in this aspect decide afresh in accordance with law.
As a result of the above, it is held that the matter with regard to relief under Section 80IB of the Act requires to be re-adjudicated. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh, after hearing the parties by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. As a result, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1403
Condonation of delay - Held that:- None of reasons can justify the extraordinary delay of 910 days in re-filing the appeal. After the appeal was initially filed on 20th August, 2014, the Department actually forgot about it entirely. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of over two-and-a-half years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time.
The Court is not convinced by the reasons given for the delay of 910 days in re-filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1402
Validity of special audit - whether special audit has been directed only to secure more time to pass an order of assessment is concerned? - Held that:- There is nothing in the Act which prohibits the Assessing Officer from ordering/directing the special audit after a particular date before the last date of framing an assessment. An Assessing Officer can direct a special audit as and when he does come to the conclusion that the accounts of the assessee are required to be specially audited for any one of the reasons set out in section 142(2A) of the Act. Thus, this grievance is not sustainable.
Not directing the special audit of the accounts of the petitioner's wife and family members - Held that:- It is an irrelevant consideration while considering the necessity of special audit in the case of the petitioner. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 142(2A) of the Act by the Assessing Officer has to be examined merely on the basis of the material available before him in respect of the assessee concerned while exercising jurisdiction to direct special audit. Nothing has been shown to us that on the basis of the material available before the Assessing Officer, the direction for special audit is perverse. Thus, this grievance is also not justified.
Assessing Officer did not examine the books of account before ordering/directing the special audit - Held that:- We find that the show-cause notice as well as the impugned direction proceed on the basis that on verification of the books of account and vouchers that the issue of special audit arose. Thus, this grievance of non-examination of the books of account is without any substance. Moreover after the amendment to section 142(2A) of the Act with effect from 2013, a special audit is not restricted only to complexity of the accounts. The special audit can now be directed not only if the accounts are complicated but also if there is doubt to the correctness of the account or multiplicity of transactions or volume of transaction or specialised nature of the accounts.
Other grievance that the notice did not indicate the reasons which led him to a prima facie view directing a special audit stands belied by the fact that the show-cause notice dated July 25, 2016, issued to the petitioner, in fact, indicated the basis for directing special audit on the basis of the volume of the total trades executed by the petitioner, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts, including the nature and complexity of the accounts and doubts about the correctness of the accounts. Therefore, this grievance is also without substance.
The terms of reference indicates that the special auditor has also been asked to prepare accounts and therefore bad in law, is unjustified. Section 142(2A) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer while directing a special audit to furnish audit report in the prescribed form and can also seek such other particulars from the special auditor which he may require to complete the assessment. The terms of reference indicate that the examination which had to be done by the special audit was to examine the accounts keeping in view the supporting evidence. Thus, this grievance is also without any substance.
The argument that, entire direction for special audit is without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner under section 153A of the Act in respect of three of the assessment years concerned as the assessment for those years had been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. At this stage, this submission on the part of the petitioner is premature. Presently, we are only concerned with the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to direct a special audit. The necessary conditions to be satisfied before the special audit is directed are listed/set out in section 142(2A) of the Act and these are satisfied. Thus the direction for special audit. The issue of framing/passing an assessment order would arise only after the special audit is completed. Thus there is no merit in this submission to challenge the direction of special audit by the impugned order.
We find that the impugned order dated March 10, 2016 directing a special audit is not without jurisdiction. The procedural safeguards of notice, approval of the Chief Commissioner and hearing have undisputedly been complied with. Besides, the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before directing a special audit is his opinion on the basis of the facts before him and such opinion is not shown to be perverse.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1401
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice as it does not clearly strike out the charge of penalty - Held that:- We find that the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act by the AO for levying of the penalty is defective in so far it does not spell out the specific charge for penalty. The specific charge for the penalty whether it is levied for the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income must emanate from the penalty notice. In the absence of specific charge in the notice, the several courts have decided the issue in favour of assessee . See Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - inaccurate particulars of income on account of low GP ratio declared by the assessee which was subsequently reduced by the ld. CIT(A). - A.Y.06-07. - Held that:- The assessee had furnished complete particulars before the authorities below. However, the addition in the hands of the assessee was made by estimating the GP profit on the turnover. In such circumstances, where no concrete evidence was found against the assessee and the addition being based on estimation, there is no merit in the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1400
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA - whether the compensation received by the assessee is business income and therefore eligible for the deduction under section 80IA ? - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that the compensation was received by the assessee from SEL as the machines failed to generate the guaranteed electricity units. It is also admitted fact that the assessee is into the business of wind power generation business. Thus it can be inferred that the impugned compensation has direct nexus with the business operations of the assessee and accordingly eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. We also find that in the identical facts & circumstances the Hon’ble ITAT decided the issue in favor of assessee by allowing the compensation on account of power generation loss is entitled for deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Act in the case of Lahoti Overseas Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax [2016 (4) TMI 591 - ITAT MUMBAI]
DR before us has alleged that the impugned compensation is in the nature of incentive which in our considered view is not true. It is because of the fact that it was given due to non-generation of units as guaranteed by the SEL. Thus by no stretch of imagination the compensation can be equated with the incentive. Thus we deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1399
Addition on account of Interest earned from Non-members of the Society U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- We find that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under cooperative societies Act which claimed deduction under section 80P on an income by way of interest earned from its members on the loan advanced to them. The AO denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act claimed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee is engaged in banking activities. But the CIT(A) re-examined the claim of the assessee and was of the view that the assessee’s income earned in the course of providing credit facilities to its members is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. During the course of hearing, the learned DR could not specifically point out any specific defect in the order of the CIT(A). See Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd., vs ITO, [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]- Decided against revenue
-
2017 (5) TMI 1398
Income from business of Real Estate - Held that:- From a careful perusal of the sale agreement, MoU and the letter of developer dated 18.02.2015, it appears that assessee has received certain amount over and above the amount payable under the agreement for sale at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of prospective buyers. But the quantification of the amount is not done by the AO nor any formula was worked out. In the light of these facts, it is of the view that this issue requires readjudication by the AO in the light of the letter of the developer, agreement for sale and MoU. If need be, the AO may summon the developer and examine him in the presence of assessee. If the assessee has received amount over and above the sale consideration, the same should be assessed as income of the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh in the terms indicated above. Appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1397
Natural justice - validity of reassessment order - it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner gave their written submission and wanted personal hearing, but this personal hearing has been denied to them and, therefore, the imposition of liability without granting them opportunity of hearing is unsustainable - Rule 24 of the Rules - Held that: - the Rule only contemplates issuance of show cause notice and hearing by granting opportunity of submission of documents. There is nothing in this rule which suggests that a personal hearing as claimed by the petitioner has to be granted - it is not a case where per se on the basis of the material available on record, a categorical finding can be recorded that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing and ex parte order was passed behind their back. On the contrary, the documents do indicate prima facie that opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and the petitioner through their counsel did avail of this opportunity.
This is not a fit case where exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the matter could be interfered with right away in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead it is a case where petitioner should take recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal available where all these issues can be sorted out on a decision taken - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1396
Penalty - suppression in payment of sales-tax under the KGST Act, 1963 - case of appellant is that the levy of works contract tax and the penalty thereon is beyond the legislative competence and powers of the State of Kerala and therefore there cannot be any levy of tax or penalty under the KGST Act - Held that: - it is rather clear that the liability to pay tax would arise only if the goods are used in a works contract - the terms of the contract clearly envisages that the goods are brought to the State by interstate movement, it gets terminated at the work site resulting in completion of interstate sale envisaged under the CST Act - this is a case in which penalty had been imposed on the assessee under Section 45A of the KGST Act. Penalty can be imposed only if there is deliberate suppression of turnover. In the light of the principles laid down, the question to be considered is whether there was deliberate contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee in declaring the goods as exigible for tax under the works contract - the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration of the revision petition - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1395
Claim for directing the authorities to relax and promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) rejected - Held that:- Neither the petitioner can claim relaxation of Rules as a matter of right nor he has made out a case of discrimination. The petitioner could be heard complaining denial of relaxation only if such a discretionary benefit was extended to similarly placed employee(s). The competent authority has not granted relaxation to any individual. It is only as a matter of policy that the employees belonging to specified Tribes and communities have been granted height relaxation to which the petitioner admittedly does not belong. Similarly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with differently-abled persons who constitute a separate and distinct class under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (5) TMI 1394
CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - non-maintenance of separate books of accounts for trading as well as exempted goods - Held that: - The Original Authority held that the respondent is liable to follow one of the two options in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004. The respondent followed second option and reversed the proportionate credit attributable to the exempted service, along with interest for delayed reversal of such credit - there is no reason to insist at the respondent should necessarily follow the first option of paying 6% of the value of exempted service - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
