The gist of the above averments is that the concerned person dealing with the matter in the appellant’s office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of “the concerned person dealing with the matter is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence the concerned person dealing with the matter must be an employee of the company.
The second objection of the department is that the appellant do not satisfy the conditions no. 2(e) of 12/05 ST regarding non-availment of cenvat credit. The appellant’s plea from the very beginning has been that they have never availed cenvat credit either in respect of inputs or input services and that they have been claiming filing only the rebate in respect of input/input services from time to time and that in the ST-3 Return for October 2010 – March, 2011 the rebate claim had been mentioned as cenvat credit availed by mistake.
By virtue of Rule 22A of Part I KSR, which rules have been formulated by the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of any State Government employee to have applied for and obtained coverage in respect of life, by subscribing to a Policy, in the official branch of the State Life Insurance and shall continue to subscribe the same till he ceased from the ‘service’. The said provision itself makes it clear that there is a reciprocal statutory duty upon the State Insurance Department, to provide Policy to such State Government employees and this statutory obligation cannot be stated as a ‘taxable service’ provided to any individual or establishment or class of such persons.
Applying the above principles to the case at hand Section 29 of the RDDB Act incorporates the provisions of the Rules found in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act for purposes of realisation of the dues by the Recovery Officer under the RDDB Act.
After perusing the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), it is evident to us that the assessee had earlier purchased the windmill in question, generated wind energy, sold the windmill to its sister concern and got the same leased back and raised claim of deduction in hand. The moot question before us is as to whether the said course of action adopted by the assessee is hit by section 80IA(3) or not. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said provision, which reads as under:
It was wrong on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee has merely acted as a contractor. By analyzing the nature of work executed by the assessee, it can be gathered that the assessee had acted as a developer. The assessee has undertaken the responsibility of execution of the work. The assessee has developed its own design and on getting approval applied the technology for completion of infrastructure facility.
Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpose of working out the limitation. Thus, on the search conducted on 19.1.1996 the notice of assessment was issued on 20.9.1996.
Assessee had given Assessing Officer a short description of an allocation of expenses based on which it had preferred a claim under Section 80-IB, but, unless and until assessee could make a meaningful link of the basis adopted by it for such allocation of expenses, with its eventual claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, it could not be considered as a proper and sufficient submission of details enabling a rationale decision to be reached regarding the quantum or allowability of its claim.
DGFT has issued a public notice no. 31 dated 21st November 2012, allowing recipient of goods also to claim refund of terminal excise duty (TED) against deemed export supplies on production of a disclaimer form from the supplier.
With a view to add transparency, fairness and independence in decision making to safeguard of stakeholders’ interest, the concept of Independent Directors was introduced. While the concept was till date applicable on Listed Public Companies, the New Company Law proposes to introduce the same upon big Public Companies as well.
