In the instant case, the capital asset having become the asset of the previous owner prior to 1-4-1981, the fair market value (FMV) of the same as on 1-4-1981 has been adopted as the deemed cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee as well, and on which aspect of the matter there is no dispute. How could then, that being the case, the assessee claim further deduction toward the claimed cost in removing the encumbrance or satisfying the condition precedent, i.e., assuming so, subject to which the property stands bequeathed to her? It is, thus, only the cost, where so, as incurred by the previous owner, or that which would stand to have been incurred by him, that would qualify for deduction under section 48(ii).
Revenue submitted that any research and development activity carried out by the head office would automatically ensure to the benefit of the units/industrial undertakings. He submitted that the head office itself does not manufacture any medicines, the benefit of the research and development would be utilized for manufacturing the products and the products would obviously be manufactured by the units.
As regards the data used by the TPO while determining the ALP, we find that it is to be as per the provisions of section 92D of the Act that every person who has entered into international transactions is required to maintain information and documentation thereof. Rule 10B(4) provides that the information and documents as specified under Rule 10B(1) and 10B(2) should as far as possible be contemporaneous and should exist latest by the “specified date” referred to in section 92F(4) which has the same meaning as ‘due date’ in Explanation 2 to section 139(1) of the Act. In the assessee’s case, this would be ’30th day of September’ as it is a company.
Read about the ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘B’ ruling in the case of Ms. Noella P. Perry regarding the cost of acquisition and cost inflation index for properties acquired before 1st April 1981. The ruling clarifies the calculation of long-term capital gains and provides guidance on the applicable dates and values.
The assessee is a cellular company selling SIM cards and recharge coupons. The assessee has deducted TDS on both the sale, i.e. SIM cards as well as recharge coupons upto the financial year 2007-08. Thereafter TDS was deducted only on SIM cards and no TDS was deducted insofar as the recharge coupons are concerned. It was explained before the Assessing Officer that because of change of policy decision TDS was not deducted. The amount paid on selling of recharge coupons was not commission but only a discount.
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.
