Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 69/2004- Customs, dated the 9th July, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 411(E), dated the 9th July, 2004, namely :-
The principle rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), dated 10st September, 2004, vide Notification No. 23/2004-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 10st September 2004,vide number G.S.R. 600(E), dated the 10th September, 2004 and last amended vide Notification No.28/2012 Central Excise (N.T) dated the 20th June, 2012, published in the Gazette of India
Seeks to further amend the notification No. 4/2002-CE (N.T.), dated 1st March, 2002 so as to make provision for interest on refund, subject to sub-rule (6), arising out of an order of final assessment under sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
As far as the assessee’s claim on payment of additional interest is concerned, while confirming the Assessing Officer’s view that the payments were contrary to the RBI guidelines, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that all that the assessee could pay as per the RBI guidelines was 8% interest only and any amount paid over and above the permissible limit was against the public policy, hence, hit by Explanation 237 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As far as this line of reasoning is concerned, we find from the Circular issued by the RBI that there is ceiling on interest payable in current account/saving bank account and discretion is available on interest to be paid on term deposits. The circular reads as under:-
Medicaments exclusively used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathic or Bio-chemic systems, manufactured in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books specified in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
The assessee disclosed capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54F on the ground that entire sale proceeds were invested in construction of house property. In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, denied exemption on ground that construction of house property was complete before the date of transfer of shares.
The primary condition for rejecting the book results as laid down under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is that the Assessing Officer should be satisfied that the books of account maintained by the assessee are not complete and correct. As can be seen from the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer has merely proceeded on a surmise that the profits of the assessee are sought to be reduced by selling its products to M/s. Pragathi Automation P. Ltd., the assessee’s sister-concern at a lesser price.
The assessee AOP in the present case has been assessed as AOP and found to have fulfilled the condition laid down in section 80 IB(10) and has been held to be eligible for such deduction. The quantum of deduction under section 80 IB (10) will depend on the income earned from eligible project. The quantum of deduction will not depend upon the mode of distribution of shares amongst the members of AOP as income of AOP is taxable at maximum marginal rate.
In a case where assessee voluntarily deducted tax and claimed refund directly, grant of interest under section 244A may not arise and the Board Circulars on this issue are applicable, whereas in a case where AO demand the tax / interest consequent to an order under section 195/201 or 201A, and the refund arose consequent to the orders of the CIT (A)/ITAT, then interest under section 244A has to be granted. In the present case, the assessee has been found entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act and section 244A provides for payment of interest on the amount of refund which becomes due to assessee under the Act. We have no doubt in our mind to hold that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A.
Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of John D’Souza (supra) has also held that any payment for not carrying out any activity or for refraining from carrying out activity in relation to business which otherwise was being allowed to be carried out by the assessee, by the erstwhile owner was assessable u/s. 28(va), squarely applies. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court further held that question of capital gains did not arise as the assessee was not owner of any asset in the first place and there is no transfer of such alleged capital asset during the previous year.
