We have considered arguments on both sides. Firstly, we notice that if the DGM (Projects), Salem followed the procedure of getting registered as “input service distributor” and then distributed the credit to SSA Salem there was nothing wrong in the credit availed by the appellant. Basically the issue involved is one of procedures and not a case of mis-utilisation of any ineligible credit. Further, we note that there has not been any distribution of credit involved because of the entire credit taken at one location was taken in one office making it easy for Revenue to conduct verification as may be necessary.
The question that is to be examined is whether it can be said that appellant has failed to disclose any material facts or tried to mislead the Chief Commissioner. I have already reproduced the contradictions observed by the Chief Commissioner. Before the compounding of offence takes place, the penalty imposed is liable to be paid and the basic principle while filing application for compounding of offence is that the offence is admitted.
Learned counsel for the Revenue however, vehemently contended that the assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel & Co. had agreed to share the receipts in ratio of 60:40. They could not have thereafter, modified such arrangement without any written contract. From the record it however, emerges that assessee and M/s. K.M. Patel & Co. agreed to make investment in such proportion for carrying out construction work jointly undertaken by them.
Surmounting all odds, Prema Jayakumar, daughter of a Mumbai-based autorickshaw driver, has topped the all India Chartered Accountancy (CA) examination. Residing in a crammed one-room chawl in suburban Malad with her parents and brother, the 24-year-old told on Tuesday she was ecstatic to have secured the first rank in the examination conducted in November 2012 […]
Companies Bill, 2012, after a very long journey and with many stumble blocks, has finally seen the light of day in Lok Sabha. After much speculation and eagerness on the subject, Lok Sabha finally approved the Bill on the night of 18th December, 2012.
In the instant case, what transferred by the assessee are the shares in the company and not the land or building or both. Assessee does not have full ownership on the flats which are owned by the company. The transfer of shares was never a part of the assessment of the Stamp duty Authorities of the State Government.
It is well settled that the proceedings of winding up is not a recovery proceeding. Once it is demonstrated that the debt is subject to a bonafide dispute, the court will not order for winding up. The principles in this regard are elucidated in Madhusudan Gordhandas (supra).
The Tribunal, upon detailed examination of the nature of relationship between the assessee and the transporter, came to the conclusion that this is not a case of sub-contract. The Tribunal noted that none of the responsibilities of the contractor vis-a-vis the execution of the work were fastened on the transporters.
On a perusal of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgement, I have found that the period of dispute involved in that case was prior to April 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, on a set of facts similar to the facts of the instant case, framed the following question of law
