We do not see any justification to hold that there was any breach of any of the provisions under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, we cannot accept the argument of Shri Sharma that AAI was a dominant purchaser and had abused its dominance. In fact for the purposes of deciding the dominance, we would have to take into consideration both the product market as well as geographical market.
In the decision of Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 139. Section 44 was considered and so was the First Schedule to the said Act and particularly rule 5(a) thereof. The Supreme Court observed that section 44 is a special provision governing computation of taxable income earned from the business of insurance.
In the judgment in Mela Ram & Sons’ case (supra) relied on by the Revenue, an appeal was dismissed without condoning delay and the question was considered whether such an order is an order in the appeal. In this judgment, after referring to the conflicting judgments of various High Courts and the previous judgment of the Apex Court, the Apex Court finally concluded thus:
In Cargo Linkers (supra), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee was not the ‘person responsible’ for making payment in terms of section 194C of the said Act. In that case, the Tribunal had also noted and found as a matter of fact that the assessee was nothing but an intermediary between the exporters and the airlines as it booked cargo for and on behalf of the exporters and mainly facilitated the contract for carrying goods.
First issue is whether the provisions of Explanation to section 73 would apply when the entire business consists of purchase and sale of shares. This issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Arvind Investments Ltd. (supra), in which it has been held that Explanation to Section 73 would apply even when entire business consists of purchase and sale of shares.
In the present case, therefore, the assessee failed to offer any explanation in not offering a particular amount to tax. This was finding of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Even if the speculation profit was eligible for set off against carry forward speculation loss, the same would have effect of diminishing such speculation loss which would be carry forwarded for future years. It is by now well settled through statutory provisions as well as decisions of the Apex Court in case of loss return also, the penalty could be imposed if by virtue of wrong claim not made bona fide, computation of loss is likely to reduce.
If any of the part of the advance attributable to taxable service and that did not form part of returns filed subsequently that amount shall be brought to tax without escapement. Law does not permit postponement of liability because of specific provision under section 67(3) of the Finance Act.
We are unable to find from the orders of the authorities below as to the manner how the appellant has failed to get benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004.
The appellant brings out that since the liability is determinable after 18-2-2006, it has discharged tax liability with interest in respect of both the appeals although it sought registration after the impugned period. It was given to understand that the period covered in both the appeals are prior to the delivery of the judgment of Apex Court in the aforesaid citation.
Terms of the agreement clearly prove that Xennia had supplied the technology to the assessee. Not only the assessee was using it, it had the right over the Intellectual Property also. Agreement entered in to by the assessee-company allowed it ‘to file patent application, design application or any such application for intellectual property rights arising out of foreground IP’.
