In the present case, the Fly Ash Handling System, even though classified under plant and machinery as a general item, is still qualified as a different class under the heading ‘Air pollution control equipment’ entitled for higher amount of depreciation. Therefore, the special category, under which air pollution control equipment is placed, applies to the Fly Ash Handing System installed by the assessee. Its eligibility for higher amount of depreciation will not be shadowed by the general rate provided for plant and machinery.
The short point in question is whether only a registered trademark has a right under any law for the time being in force In India and whether any law other than enacted law In force In India will come within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
The entire case is based on principal claim of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. It is undisputed fact that the duty amount was not paid on the due date in relation to the period for which the authority had found short-payment essentially because there was subsequent payment of the said amount, that cannot ipso facto result in revenue neutrality, merely because the appellants are entitled to avail credit in respect of the duty paid.
The petitioner trust, in this case, is also being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 for which it cannot be blamed at all : it had no liability whatsoever to pay this amount to the Revenue. Yet, the Revenue has refused to refund the same by taking some hypertechnical view of the matter. If the petitioner-trust is being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 which legitimately belongs to it due to perverse view taken by the Revenue, is it still rational to say that no genuine hardship is being caused to it ?
Mere pendency of the public interest litigation would not extinguish the liability of assessee to pay tax on the income received. The amount received by the assessee is not in pursuance to any interim order of the court wherein, the interim order merges with the final order and such payment is contingent depending upon the final verdict in the litigation. In this case, ultimately when the Government Order is set aside, if the assessee repays the money, he is eligible for adjustment of tax paid for the income received or for refund of the said amount. On the pretext that the third party has filed the public interest litigation for the relevant assessment year, he cannot avoid payment of tax on the said revenue receipt. In the event of assessee losing the battle, he will be bound to refund the amount of Rs. 2,06,33,600/- to the Government. If he were to pay tax under the Act, when once that amount is returned, he would be entitled for refund of the said tax or adjustment of tax in future, but that does not enable him to withhold payment of tax on the pretext of pending litigation. In that view of the matter, the approach of the Tribunal is not proper.
Oil and natural gas and its exploration are a field of specialized technical knowledge and not for the use of public at large. A specific training is required in the field. The information obtained by the assessee are also of technical nature. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that it contains general information is without any justification.
The Stock Exchanges are advised to report to SEBI, the action taken in this regard in the Monthly/Quarterly Development Report.
CA Mohit Agarwal Who are the Eligible Investor ? – who opened a demat account as a ‘first holder’ after November 23, 2012. – Opened a demat account prior to this date but never bought any shares or traded in the Futures and Options (F&O) segment. – still qualifies if his name appeared second in […]
The Income Tax Act was amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 15.12.1972 inserting Section 142A authorising the Assessing Officer for the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under the Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles referred to in Section 69A or Section 69B is required to be made, to refer the matter to Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him.
In the assessment order there is no finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was guilty of concealing the income which he could have recorded as provided under Section 271(1) which says that if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner, in course of any proceeding under the Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty. T
