A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
Assessee has objected to the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority and has also filed the valuation report by an Approved Valuer in support of the actual fair market value. The provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 50C, provides that where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer,
There is also no dispute as to the fact the water pumped from river Kundalika is used as a coolant in the manufacturing process. If that be so, the pumping of water from the banks of river Kundalika is integrally connected to the manufacturing process and the security services used therein becomes an input service in terms of the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In the case before us, admittedly no plans were made, therefore, there is no question of getting the same approved. Apart from this, the ld. counsel of the assessee admitted that assessee has no evidence to prove that assessee wanted to start construction. If the tax is allowed to be postponed merely on the basis of purchase of plot then no assessee would pay correct taxes during the year
The allegation of the revenue that service has been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax liability is not sustainable as per section 65(7) of the Finance Act, wherein the ‘assessee’ means a person liable to pay service tax and includes his agent. In this case, appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as her agent to discharge her service tax liability on her behalf and same has been discharged by M/s Matrix.
It is noted that the appropriation of the amounts, to the extent of Rs.18,32,782/-, towards the alleged service tax dues said to be payable by the petitioner, from the amount of Rs.47,00,094/- said to be due to the petitioner as export duty rebate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioner ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the second respondent had appropriated the said amount towards the alleged excise duty liability of the petitioner.
Admittedly, the Chartered Accountant’s certificate to the effect that sale is on FOR basis and all expenses incurred up to the buyers premises form part of the cost of final product. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held in favour of the appellant, when he observed that the purchase orders are on FOR basis and it is the appellant who has to bear the freight and insurance by arranging transportation of the goods.
Appellants, Respondents and all other concerned are hereby informed that, in exercise of powers vested in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under sub-section [5] of section 255 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is directed that appeals and applications fixed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT), Allahabad Bench, Allahabad will be heard through Video Conferencing by the Members of the ITAT as may be nominated by the President,
It may be noted that a confirmed demand remains an order in operation till it is stayed. Mere preferment of appeal itself does not operate as a stay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs Krishna Sales (P) Ltd [1994 (73) E.L.T 519 (S.C)] has observed that As is well known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the Order appealed against”. Accordingly, the above directions are hereby issued for initiating recovery of the confirmed demands. Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX
In the instant case effect of the issue of right shares vis-a-vis original shares had not been fully kept in proper perspective by the Tribunal in its evaluation. Further the assessee was the chairman of the company and in fact that if he did not participate in buying right shares, that would have adverse effect on the value of the shares of the company
