The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. In any case, the Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
Government issued order enhancing the Dearness Allowance payable to Central Government Employees with effect from 1.1.2013 from the existing 72% to 80%.
With this amplification of the scope of the power of the DRP, now even the matters not agitated by the assessee before the DRP can also be considered for the purposes of enhancement.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 80G(5)(i)(b) provides the condition for exemption or rejection of the application for renewal, if the donation made to the institution or funds are not used by it directly or indirectly for the purpose of such business. In the present case the Commissioner did not record any such finding that the funds, which was earmarked and was kept in separate account in fixed deposit was not used by the respondent assessee directly or indirectly. Infact there was no occasion to misuse the funds as the hospital had not yet started and thus the plant and machinery could not be purchased from the grant, which was kept in fixed deposit.
Abacus Distribution wins stay against Rs.8.81 Cr tax demand. Transfer pricing & depreciation issues contested. Next hearing on 8th July 2013.
The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette and valid up to the 29th July, 2014 and shall be payable in Indian currency.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the
From the impugned order, it does not come out clearly how the service tax liability has been computed. If the appellant has purchased from third parties and sold the same on payment of VAT and also supplied hardware on payment of VAT, the same would not be liable to service tax. The liability to service tax would arise only in respect of software which the appellant has developed as per customer’s specifications and supplied to their customers.
One important question survives for consideration and the same is whether the legal mistake committed by the Department can be corrected to ensure that the offender does not escape punishment under the Central Excise law. There is a clear distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. The former cannot be rectified at later stage but the latter is rectifiable subject, of course, to legal constraints. In the present case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the sole purpose of penalizing them for the offence alleged therein.
