Notification No. 53/ 2012-Customs- (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (34) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), specified in column (2) of the Table below, shall be amended, in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, namely:-
Section 285 of Income-tax Act and Rule 114DA of Income-tax Rules read with Circular No. 5 of 2012, dated 6-2-2012, prescribes that a specified categories of assessees having a (Liaison Office in India shall electronically file Form 49C, within 60 days from the end of financial year. The due date for filing Form 49C for the financial year 2011-12 was prescribed as 30th May, 2012.
Statute has either mentioned that the date on which the order sought to be appealed should be the date of communication, or the date when the order is served or the date of service of the notice of demand. However, the Statute has not given any such indication while drafting the language of section 254(2) of the I.T.Act rather it has plainly mentioned, without any ambiguity, that the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within four years from the date of the order shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee.
Yesterday, the TRU has issued number of Notifications to give effect of implementation of Paradigm shift in taxation of Services –Budget 2012 by way of either rescinding or amending old Notifications including some of recently issued Notifications during the time of Budget 2012 i.e. 17th March, 2012, which were supposed to come into force from the date on which the new Section 66B (the new charging Section) i.e. 1st July 2012.
Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides for furnishing a permanent account number, is contrary to Section 139A and discriminatory and therefore, read down from the statute for those persons, whose income is less than the taxable limit [A. Kowsalya & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P 12780-12782/2010)]
The expression ‘reasonable cause’ used in Section 273B is not defined under the Act. Unlike the expression ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression ‘reasonable cause’ in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression ‘reasonable cause’ would have wider connotation than the expression ‘sufficient cause’. Therefore, the expression ‘reasonable cause’ in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E would have to be construed liberally depending upon the facts of each case.
Boskalis Dredging India P.Ltd, is a company incorporated in India on 5th January,1996. It is engaged in the business of undertaking inter alia capital and maintenance dredging projects and providing technical related services in dredging. However, during the relevant year, the income was earned from hire of personnel, hire of equipment and services rendered to group companies and not from dredging contracts. The assessee had leased dredger Gemini and Multicat Coby to associate enterprise, Boskalis International BV (‘BIBV’) since 1997, under the Standard Bareboat Charter Agreement.
In the said assessment year, the assessee had earned premium of Rs.12,26,140/- on sale of export quota. The Assessing Officer held that this premium is covered by Section 28 (iiia/b/c) and accordingly computed deduction under Section 80HHC but without giving benefit of provisos under sub Section (3) to Section 80HHC. He observed that the export turnover in the previous year was exceeding Rs.10 crores and the assessee had not complied with the several conditions mentioned in the provisos. The sale proceeds received from sale of quota rights were excluded from benefit under the provisos to Section 80HHC(3) as this was not the regular business income of the assessee.
The assessee has made an attempt to suppress the true colour of the payment towards the goodwill by stating that payments were made towards non compete fee, IPR on brand/brand value, etc. In fact the assessee as well as its sister concern M/s. Pentafour Technologies Limited do have a common CEO and the companies are working under a common management. There is interlacing of activities and interlocking of funds.
The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission deserves to be upheld as the assessee, it is apparent, is caught in its own web, which it stoutly and strongly deny. Even now in the writ petition they have urged and argued that their conduct and actions were bona fide and solely guided by the noble and honourable desire to come clean with their inglorious past. The assessee claims that they without any motive or intention to help a third person, declared undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 1,36,08,897. It is being recorded that the undisclosed income has been partly accepted and immunity from penalty and prosecution stands granted, but the ‘wrong’ is checkmated and corrected by the Settlement Commission.
