|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 667 Records
-
2007 (10) TMI 666
Issues:
- Appeal under amended Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Benefit of concessional rate of duty on cotton fabrics
- Applicability of Notifications 14/2002-C.E. and 22/96-C.E.
- Differential duty, interest, and penalty imposed by Commissioner
- Tribunal's judgment in Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Analysis:
1. The appeal was initially dismissed for non-submission as required under the amended Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellants later paid the fee, leading to the restoration of the appeal to its original position.
2. The appeal, involving a narrow issue, was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, waiving pre-deposit of differential duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
3. The department contended that the appellants manufactured cotton fabrics from spinning yarn, availing duty benefits under Notification 22/96. The issue revolved around whether the appellants could avail the concessional duty rate under Notification 14/2002-C.E. for fabrics manufactured between October 2002 and March 2003.
4. After adjudication, the Commissioner ordered the appellants to pay differential duty, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appellants cited Tribunal's judgment in Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, where a similar issue was addressed.
5. The Tribunal found the appellants' case aligned with the Simplex Mills judgment, emphasizing that captive consumption was exempted under Notification 22/96. The Commissioner was deemed to have misapplied the duty rate, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
2007 (10) TMI 665
Issues involved: Interpretation of the maintainability of an appeal regarding interest charged under Section 139(8) and 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal regarding interest charged under Section 139(8) and 215
The High Court, in a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 1972-73, was tasked with determining the validity of an appeal by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the levy of interest. The specific question posed was whether such an appeal was competent and maintainable, and if challenging the interest levy amounted to denying the liability to pay interest u/s 139(8) and 215. The Court referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and concluded that the appeal in question was not maintainable. Citing the precedent set in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court upheld the view that appeals related to interest charged under the mentioned sections were not maintainable. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee, disposing of the reference accordingly.
-
2007 (10) TMI 664
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case based on a previous decision.
-
2007 (10) TMI 663
Issues Involved:1. Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed covers. 2. Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun. 3. Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate Tribunal. Summary:Issue 1: Liability to tax u/s 5(2) of the KGST Act for sales in printed coversThe revision petitioner, a dealer in bakery products, claimed exemption from sales tax on the grounds that his sales were second sales. However, upon inspection by the Intelligence wing, it was found that the petitioner sold bakery products under a brand name or trade mark. The assessing authority reopened the assessment and concluded that the sales were exigible to tax u/s 5(2) of the Act. The first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the petitioner used printed covers with the bakery's name and address, which constituted sales under a brand name. The High Court affirmed this view, stating that the petitioner was a brand name holder and thus the sales were not exempt as second sales. Issue 2: Exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bunThe petitioner argued for exemption on 30% of the turnover towards bread and bun. However, this issue was not raised before the assessing authority or the Tribunal. The High Court held that new issues not argued before lower authorities cannot be raised for the first time in a revision petition. Therefore, this contention was rejected. Issue 3: Reasonableness of the addition sustained by the Appellate TribunalThe petitioner contended that the addition sustained by the Tribunal was unreasonable. The High Court, however, found no merit in this argument, as the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the facts and upheld the assessment based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal's decision was deemed reasonable and in accordance with the law. Conclusion:The High Court rejected the revision petition, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The questions of law framed by the assessee were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.
-
2007 (10) TMI 662
The High Court admitted the case and framed a substantial question of law regarding the authority of an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax to make assessments. The Court ruled in favor of the revenue and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (10) TMI 661
The High Court admitted the case and framed a substantial question of law regarding the authority of an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax to make assessments. The court ruled in favor of the revenue and remanded the matter to be heard on merits by the Tribunal. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (10) TMI 660
Issues involved: The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Allowance of compensation as revenue expenditure u/s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decision.
2. Treatment of compensation as revenue expenditure despite capitalization in earlier assessment years.
3. Deletion of addition of interest and guarantee commission as business expenditure.
4. Justification of not charging interest u/s Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Allowance of advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure under completed contract method.
6. Dispute regarding brokerage and commission against rental income under 'Income from house property'.
a) Compensation Expenditure: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the compensation of Rs. 1,10,55,194 paid by the assessee to its clients as revenue expenditure. The question of law arises on whether this allowance was correct in law.
b) Capitalization Issue: Another question arises on whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the compensation as revenue expenditure despite the assessee capitalizing similar compensation in work in progress in earlier assessment years.
c) Deletion of Addition: The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,22,25,676 and Rs. 13,67,115 paid by the assessee to the bank as interest and guarantee commission, considering it as business expenditure. The issue is whether this deletion was legally justified.
d) Interest Chargeability: The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act was not chargeable on the tax required to be deducted at source on rent paid by the assessee. This decision was made despite the assessee claiming credit of tax deducted by tenants in its return. The question is whether this decision was justified in law.
e) Advertisement Expenses: Despite the assessee following the completed contract method of accounting, the Tribunal allowed advertisement expenses of Rs. 17,64,940 as revenue expenditure. The issue is whether this allowance was legally correct.
f) Brokerage and Commission: A dispute arose regarding brokerage and commission of Rs. 29,48,875 paid to the assessee against rental income assessed under 'Income from house property'. The Revenue raised this issue, but a previous Division Bench decision dismissed a similar appeal, stating no substantial question of law had arisen.
Separate Judgment Highlight: The judgment does not mention any separate judgment delivered by the judges.
-
2007 (10) TMI 659
Dishonor of Cheque - Post dated cheques was given as Earnest money deposit Or Security - Legally enforceable debt u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Or not? - The difference in the two kinds of post-dated cheques would be that the cheque issued under first circumstance would be for a debt due, only payment being postponed - The latter cheque would be by way of a security - HELD THAT:- A post dated cheque may be issued under 2 circumstances. Under circumstance one, it may be issued for a debt in presenti but payable in future. Under second circumstance it may be issued for a debt which may become payable in future upon the occurrence of a contingent event.
The word 'due' means 'outstanding at the relevant date'. The debt has to be in existence as a crystallized demand akin to a liquidated damages and not a demand which may or may not come into existence; coming into existence being contingent upon the happening of an event.
It would be relevant to note that the statute does not refer to the debt being payable, meaning thereby, a post dated cheque for a debt due but payment postponed at a future date would attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. But the cheque issued not for an existing due, but issued by way of a security, would not attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, for it has not been issued for a debt which has come into in existence.
Looking to the precedent, I find that in the decision M.S.Narayana Menon @Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr.[2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed that:- “If the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act.''
Thus, the petition must succeed - The summoning order is quashed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 658
Issues Involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding TDS deduction on commission paid to agents.
Summary:
Issue 1: TDS Deduction on Commission Paid to Agents
The appellant, a travel agent, deducted TDS on commission paid to agents but did not deduct TDS on discounts or special commissions. The Assessing Officer alleged a violation of section 194H of the Act and sought penalty u/s 271C. The CIT(A) reversed the decision, canceling the penalty.
Details: The appellant argued that the requirement to deduct TDS on discounts/special commissions was debatable. Expert opinions, including from the former Chairman of CBDT, supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal, agreeing with the CIT(A), dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no grounds for penalty imposition.
Judgment: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that expert opinions supported the appellant's stance. The issue was debatable, and there was reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Act for not deducting TDS. No substantial question of law was found, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 657
Issues involved: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, legality of reassessment proceedings, disclosure of material facts by the assessee, time limit for reopening assessment.
Summary:
The cross-appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue challenging the reopening of the assessment. The main contention was that the assessment should not have been reopened after a lapse of four years as all material details were disclosed to the Assessing Officer (AO) during the original assessment u/s 143(3). The assessee argued that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law. The AO's internal memo to the CIT seeking permission to reopen the case contained incorrect information, leading to unjustified sanction for reopening.
The proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act states that if an assessment has been completed u/s 143(3), it should not be reopened after four years unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts. In this case, the assessee had disclosed all relevant details, and the AO had raised queries regarding the claimed interest and capital gains. The reassessment was deemed illegal as it was based on a change of opinion, not on new undisclosed facts. Citing previous court decisions, the Tribunal held that the reassessment beyond the time limit specified in the proviso to section 147 was illegal and quashed the reassessment.
As a result of quashing the reassessment, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits raised by the parties and set aside the order of the CIT(A), annulling the reassessment proceedings. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 656
Issues:
1. Determination of duty-free import violation under Notification No.117/88-COS.
2. Validity of show cause notice based on alleged suppression.
3. Verification of the genuineness of entities involved in the case.
4. Assessment of the burden of proof on the assessee regarding entity status and transactions.
Analysis:
1. The civil appeal challenged the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's success due to alleged suppression in the show cause notice. The issue revolved around the duty-free import of raw material under the Pass Book Scheme and its subsequent sale in the open market without utilizing it in the assessee's own factory, potentially violating Notification No.117/88-COS.
2. The show cause notice, issued based on incriminating documents seized during a search operation, alleged that the assessee sold imported raw material in the open market instead of using it in their factory, raising concerns about compliance with relevant regulations. The notice specifically highlighted the sale to non-existent entities, questioning the legitimacy of transactions and adherence to import policies.
3. The Commissioner's examination revealed doubts regarding the genuineness of the entities involved in the transactions, particularly entities claiming to be Small Scale Industry (SSI) units without verifiable addresses. The determination of the legitimacy of these entities was crucial in assessing the validity of the transactions and the assessee's compliance with regulatory requirements.
4. The appellate court emphasized the need for a comprehensive reassessment by the adjudicating authority, directing the burden of proof onto the assessee to provide detailed information regarding the status and addresses of the entities in question. Additionally, the burden extended to demonstrating the payment details for goods sold through a commission agent, highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in the transactional process.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remitting the case for fresh consideration by the Commissioner to ensure a thorough examination of the issues raised, particularly regarding entity legitimacy, compliance with import regulations, and the burden of proof on the assessee. The decision underscored the significance of adherence to legal requirements and the need for transparent and verifiable transactions in import-related matters.
-
2007 (10) TMI 655
Issues involved:
The issue involves the demand of service tax on a company providing coaching services to students registered with foreign universities, contesting the classification as a 'commercial training or coaching centre' under section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, and challenging the demand on both merits and limitation grounds.
Details of the judgment:
1. Classification as 'commercial training or coaching centre':
The appellants, a company operating under section 25 of the Companies Act, provided coaching to students registered with a foreign university. The demand for service tax was based on the gross amount collected from students. The primary question was whether the coaching activity could be considered 'commercial'. The appellants argued that since they utilized profits for their own infrastructural development, they should not be classified as a 'commercial coaching centre'. Despite the rejection of this argument by the Commissioner, a favorable view was noted from a coordinate Bench in similar cases, leading to the grant of waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.
2. Stay order and disposal of appeal:
Considering the significant stake in the case, the Tribunal decided to expedite the appeal process. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on a specific date to ensure timely resolution of the matter.
This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI addressed the issues of classification as a 'commercial training or coaching centre' and the expedited disposal of the appeal due to the high stake involved in the case.
-
2007 (10) TMI 654
Issues involved: Appeal against order relating to Assessment Year 1998-99 challenging disallowance of provision for diminution in the value of investments u/s 115JA of the I.T. Act.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for diminution in the value of investments while calculating income u/s 115JA of the I.T. Act. The assessee had excluded the income from diminution in the value of investments at a specific amount while computing income under Section 115JA, which the Assessing Officer disagreed with. The Ld CIT(A) also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, stating that the provision made for diminution in the value of shares is not an ascertained liability. The assessee argued that the provision of diminution in the value of assets is outside the scope of the explanation to section 115JA of the I T Act and cited relevant case law in support. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant legal positions, held in favor of the appellant, stating that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision for liability but for diminution in the value of assets, and thus, the grounds raised by the appellant were allowed. The appeal filed by the appellant was ultimately allowed.
This judgment highlights the interpretation and application of provisions related to the calculation of income under Section 115JA of the I.T. Act, specifically concerning the treatment of provisions for diminution in the value of investments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the conformity of the appellant's computation of book profit with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, emphasizing the distinction between provisions for liability and diminution in asset value in determining taxable income.
-
2007 (10) TMI 653
Suit for specific performance - Contract for sale - legal representatives impleaded - Seeking Permission to file additional written statement - application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) r/w Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Right to file a written statement - Violation of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- It may be noted that in the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 the shop in dispute has been mentioned and the sale was shown in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons, Narainlal, Devilal and Pukhraj. Hence, the registered sale deed itself shows that the purchaser was not Kapoor Chand alone, but also his sons as co-owners. Hence, prima facie, it seems that the sons of Kapoor Chand are also co-owners of the property in dispute.
However, we are not expressing any final opinion on the question whether they are co-owners as that would be decided in the suit. But we are certainly of the opinion that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide. Hence, in our opinion, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written statement.
In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.
Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. In our opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice.
Thus, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court, are set aside - Appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 652
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of cess not paid on tea exported, interpretation of Notification exempting tea from levy and collection of cess, applicability of Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the payment of cess on tea exported under bond.
Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery of Cess:
M/s. Dunsandle Tea Factory applied for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of &8377; 39,297/- being cess not paid on tea exported and interest due thereon demanded for the period 2/05 to 9/05. The appellants exported tea under bond without paying cess imposed under Tea Act, 1953, believing in the exemption notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that cess had to be paid on tea when exported under bond as the levy of cess was not exempted in terms of the Tea Act, 1953. However, the Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX issued by the CBEC stated that goods are exempt from payment of cess when exported under bond if the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules were applicable. Considering the Circular and the Notification dated 1-9-2004 of the Ministry of Commerce, the Tribunal found that cess on tea is not liable to be paid when exported under bond by a star export house. Therefore, a complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess was granted until the appeal is finally disposed of.
Interpretation of Notification Exempting Tea from Levy and Collection of Cess:
The Notification No. S.O. 9777(E) issued by the Ministry of Commerce exempted all tea produced in India and exported by Export-Oriented Units from the levy and collection of cess. The appellants claimed exemption based on this notification, supported by Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX issued by the CBEC. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the levy of cess on tea exported under bond was not exempted under the Tea Act, 1953. However, the Tribunal, after considering the Circular and the Notification, found that cess on tea is not liable to be paid when exported under bond by a star export house, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess.
Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Regarding Payment of Cess on Tea Exported Under Bond:
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a decision of the Government of India in the case of Bharath Beedi Works Ltd., where it was held that in the absence of a Notification under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, cess had to be paid on export of goods under bond. The Government concurred with the decision of CEGAT that cess was leviable unless there was an exemption notification issued. However, the Tribunal, after analyzing the Circular and the Notification, concluded that cess on tea exported under bond by a star export house is not liable to be paid, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess.
-
2007 (10) TMI 651
Issues involved: Challenge to constitutionality of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of IT Act introduced by Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004 and seeking stay on its operation.
Summary:
Constitutionality Challenge: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of IT Act, introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004, as ultra vires. The clause stated that expenses for which tax is not deducted at source or paid to the Government within the specified time under Section 200 would not be deductible in computing income.
Stay Application: The petitioner sought a stay on the operation of Clause (ia) of Section 40(a) of IT Act and requested a direction to accept the petitioner's return for the assessment year 2007-08 without applying the said clause.
Court Decision: The court noted the presumption in favor of the statute and declined to grant a stay on the amended provision. However, the court directed the petitioners to submit self-assessment returns including the amount for which tax was deducted at source. The respondents were instructed to accept the returns for the year 2007-08. The petitioners were required to pay tax on the self-assessment income, and the Department was restrained from taking penal action until the filing of the counter affidavit.
Provisional Nature of Returns: The filing of returns and tax payment based on such returns was deemed provisional. The petitioners were liable to file modified returns and pay any additional tax if necessary in case of failure in the proceedings.
Further Directions: The learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve private notice on the respondents for further proceedings.
-
2007 (10) TMI 650
Denial of Rectification Application - Business income Vs. Other sources - Deduction u/s 80HHC - Interest received on FDRs - availing credit facilities - Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to reduce interest paid by it from the interest received by it, while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC(3A) read with Explanation (baa)? - HELD THAT:- Nowhere in the assessment order has the Assessing Officer found that the interest earned by the assessee was business income. Therefore, the first question stands answered against the assessee in view of the categorical pronouncement in Shri Ram Honda Power Equip.’s case that interest earned on FDRs kept for availing credit facilities is not business income but ‘income from other sources.’
The decision in Punjab Stainless Steel Ind.’s [2007 (1) TMI 543 - DELHI HIGH COURT] case where the AO had held the interest income to be business income and which finding was not challenged is, therefore, of no assistance to the assessee. Also, in view of the finding by the AO in the instant case that there is no nexus between the interest paid and the interest earned by the assessee, the second question will also have to be answered against the assessee.
Thus, the question of law as re-framed by us, is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 649
Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999 for eligibility of 'BOPP Film' under chapter heading 3920.99 for customs duty benefit.
Summary:
The appellant imported 'BOPP Film' under chapter heading 3920.99 claiming benefit of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999. The assessment officer doubted the eligibility of the Notification for the imported goods, leading to a demand for differential duty. The appellant appealed against the order-in-original, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the benefit of the Notification should not be denied based on a previous case and subsequent amendments. The Jt. CDR contended that 'BOPP Film' and 'plain film' are different categories, and the benefit of the Notification is only for plain films. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the reduced rate of customs duty as per the provisions of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999, amended by Notification No. 20/2001 dated 1.3.2001. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant and held that the explanation added to the Notification in 2001 clarified the coverage of the exemption and applied retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by the revenue in a similar case, confirming the Tribunal's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.
Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the 'BOPP Film' imported by the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 25/99 dated 28.2.1999, as amended by Notification No. 20/2001 dated 1.3.2001. The Tribunal emphasized that the explanation added to the Notification in 2001 clarified the scope of the exemption and applied retrospectively. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the dismissal of a Civil Appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, confirming the finality of the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with any necessary consequential relief.
-
2007 (10) TMI 648
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically related to assessment orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 146(3) of the Act. The questions of law referred for opinion include the applicability of section 263 to such assessment orders, the existence of a business connection in India due to the functioning of Indian branches, and the tax liability of a non-resident assessee in India based on the activities of its Indian branch.
Interpretation of Section 263:
The counsel for the assessee argued that if it is held that the Commissioner of Income-tax could not exercise powers under section 263, then the subsequent questions regarding business connection and tax liability would become irrelevant. The counsel for the revenue acknowledged this position but highlighted that some High Courts have taken a different view based on the Explanation in the Act, considering it clarificatory and retrospective. The amendment to section 263 in 1984 was discussed, emphasizing its prospective effect from 1-10-1984, as mentioned in the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984.
Comparison of Amendments:
The court compared the language of the 1984 amendment with the subsequent 1989 amendment to section 263, noting the addition of clause (c) in the latter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1989 amendment was discussed, indicating that it was deemed retrospective. The absence of certain crucial words in the 1984 amendment highlighted its prospective nature. The court also examined previous decisions by different High Courts and emphasized the importance of analyzing the language used in each amendment for determining retrospective applicability.
Conclusion:
After reviewing the arguments and previous decisions, the court upheld its earlier stance established in a previous case, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the applicability of section 263 to the assessment order in question. Consequently, the subsequent questions related to business connection and tax liability were deemed unnecessary for consideration. The court disposed of the reference accordingly, affirming its decision on question No. (1) in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2007 (10) TMI 647
Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land.
2. Alleged discrimination in policy application and regularization.
3. Legal validity of actions taken by NOIDA.
Summary:
1. Unauthorized Additional Construction and Change of User of Land:
The appellant challenged the orders by NOIDA officers dated 27.10.2004 and 31.3.2005, which cited unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land. NOIDA issued a notice u/s 10(1) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976, indicating violations of building bye-laws and lease deed terms. The appellant was required to remove unauthorized construction within 15 days. Subsequent notices were issued due to non-compliance, and the appellant's request for changed user was rejected by NOIDA.
2. Alleged Discrimination in Policy Application and Regularization:
The appellant argued that there was discrimination as other lessees of plots P-4, P-5, and P-6 were permitted similar changes. The High Court dismissed this claim, noting that the appellant failed to prove compliance with the terms and conditions. The Court emphasized that any irregularities by NOIDA in other cases do not confer a legal right to the appellant for similar treatment.
3. Legal Validity of Actions Taken by NOIDA:
The Supreme Court upheld the actions of NOIDA, stating that the appellant's construction and usage were in violation of the lease deed and building regulations. The Court reiterated that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality and that unauthorized actions by NOIDA in other cases do not justify similar treatment for the appellant. The Court cited several precedents affirming that illegal actions do not create legal rights for others to claim parity.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that NOIDA's actions were legally valid and not discriminatory. The Court emphasized adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks, rejecting the appellant's claims for similar treatment based on alleged irregularities in other cases.
........
|
9911796707
