"19 October 2015" Archive

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for mere non-application of Rule 8D by assessee

ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied....

Read More

Deduction cannot be allowed merely on consistency or on the basis of mere Footnote in Audited Balance Sheet

Indo Count Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT New Delhi held in Indo Count Industries Ltd Vs DCIT( ITAT New Delhi) that it all depends upon the facts of the case that whether the assesse was eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B for all the units as a single entity or every unit was independently eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B as a separate unit. ...

Read More

Service Tax not to be included while calculating the gross receipts for sec 44BB

M/s Sundowner Offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held in M/s Sundowner offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd Vs ADIT (International Taxation, Dehradun) that for calculating the gross receipts for sec 44BB, reimbursement of service tax not to be included in gross receipts and 10% of the total gross receipts without considering the service tax would be taken as taxable income of...

Read More

Mere Frequency of transactions in shares did not determine nature of transaction

CIT (Kolkata) Vs Merlin Holding Private Limited (Calcutta High Court)

ITAT held in CIT( Kolkatta) Vs Merlin Holding Private Limited that it was the question of the fact to decide between the share income as an investment income or as a business income. Mere Frequency of the transactions in the shares did not determine the transaction to be business transaction or investment transaction....

Read More

Search will be deemed to be concluded for completion of assessment from the date when keys were handed over to assessee

Navin Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT(A) (Kolkata High Court)

Kolkatta High Court held in Navin Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT(A) that for the conclusion of search, date of last panchnama was to be seen provided keys had been handed over to the assessee. If the keys were still with the department it meant that department could resume the search any time if necessary irrespective of the fact that only restrain...

Read More

Cenvat credit available on capital goods/inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods & cleared without payment of duty on Job work basis: HC

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs Customs Excise & Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal (Madras High Court)

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, it was held by Madras High Court that the assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on the capital goods/inputs used in the manufacture of goods which are exempted and which are cleared without payment of duty on Job work basis....

Read More

No penalty where issue involved is predominantly and legally interpretative in nature: HC

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Vijay Television (P) Ltd. (Madras High Court)

In the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., it was held by Madras High Court that the decision of the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the demand of service tax for the period beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act ...

Read More

No penalty for mere technical or venial breach of Law: HC

M/s. Novel Digital Electronics Vs The Commissioner Customs (Imports) (Madras High Court)

In the case of M/s.Novel Digital Electronics Vs The Commissioner Customs (Imports), it was held by Madras High Court that penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct...

Read More

No refund application required for refund of Extra Duty Deposit made pending finalisation of provisional assessment: HC

Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs M/s. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)

In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs M/s.Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd., it was held by High Court of Madras that the assessee is entitled for automatic refund of the Extra Duty Deposit made pending finalisation of the provision assessment without filing an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962....

Read More

Substantial benefit cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse: HC

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Vs M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

In the case of Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that substantive benefits provided by a notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses by the assessee....

Read More