On a plain reading of the aforesaid circulars/letters, it is evident that the opposite party associations through these circulars/letters tried to limit/control the supply of the film in contravention of the provision of section 3 (1) read with section 3(3)(b) of the Act. By virtue of the provisions contained in section 3(3) of the Act, any agreement entered into between enterprises or associations of enterprises or persons or associations of persons or between any person and enterprise or practice carried on, or decision taken by, any association of enterprises or association of persons, including cartels, engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services, which (a) directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices;
After considering the submissions, we note that the impugned demand of service tax and education cess is not under any determinate head of taxable service. No breakup of the gross value for different categories mentioned in the impugned order is forthcoming. Apparently, the appropriate taxable service was not identified either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. A demand of service tax without correct classification of the taxable service is alien to the scheme of service tax levy.
The stand of the assessee before the lower authorities that it was inadvertent mistake and there was no mala fide in availing the ineligible excess credit. On perusal of the Show-Cause Notice, we find that the Show Cause Notice only alleges the violation of provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of Finance Act, 1994 (sic). The said Show-Cause Notice does not allege any mala fide on the appellant for availment of excess credit. In our view, having reversed the ineligibly availed the Cenvat credit on being pointed out by the Audit party, the appellant has shown their bona fide on admitting the error. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order which upholds the imposition of penalty on the appellant is liable to be set aside and we do so.
There is sufficient material on record, and the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the appellant company make it abundantly clear, that the same is a Government company and is a subsidiary of IBP, which is also a Government company. More than 61.8 per cent shares of the appellant company are held by IBP, a Government company.
The fact that in the 80th AGM held on 30th July 2007, the audited accounts for the financial years ended 31st March 2004, 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2006 were placed and adopted makes it clear that any default in that regard by BSMCL stands condoned. No other shareholder has objected to those accounts. They are taken to be the audited accounts. Neither the ROC nor the RD, nor the OL raised any objection. The objection of Mr. H.K. Chadha that adjustment entries have to be made in the accounts prepared by BRS for an earlier period to arrive at the correct picture cannot, in the above circumstances, be countenanced. No material has been placed on record by Mr. H.K. Chadha to substantiate the plea of non-preparation of the audited accounts of the above financial years.
In so far as the specific instances of the abuse of agreement in question are concerned, it is obvious that there has been a settlement between the original complainant and the respondents. Because the complainant does not have any more complaint/grievance of any boycott or the compulsory undertakings which he is to give under the authority of either FMC or FDC so that question will clearly be foreign to the present enquiry.
Bare perusal of provision shows that the sine qua non for resorting to s. 260A is the satisfaction of the Court that the appeal involves more/additional substantial question of law other than the one on which appeal was admitted for hearing. The scheme of the Act is quite clear. Decisions on factual issues are within the domain of authorities and should be sorted out before the matter reaches the High Court in appeal.
The Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer Com (P.) Ltd. (supra) had held that if the related party transaction exceeded 15% of the total sales/revenue, the same cannot be taken as a comparable. Following the Coordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the case cited supra, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude, after due verification, those comparables from the list with the related party transactions or controlled transactions in excess of 15% of the total revenue for the financial year 2006-07.
The ground raised by the Revenue relates to exclusion of foreign currency expenses not related to onsite software development from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A and 80HHE of the Act. The case of the assessee is that foreign expenditure which has been incurred on on-site software development activity should not be excluded from the export turnover.
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income.
