The applicant has contended before the adjudicating authority that supply of electricity is supply of ‘goods’ and the same is exempted as per Notification no. 12/2003-ST wherein it has been clarified that supply of goods shall not form part of taxable service.
The Promoters and Builders Association as well as MCHI have filed the Special Leave Petitions before Honble Supreme Court of India. The matter came for hearing before the Honble Apex court on 28th August 2012.
The Hon’ble Deputy CM and Finance Minister in his Budget Speech on 26th March 2012, declared to levy tax on the sales of Furnishing Cloth at the last point of sale. To give effect to this declaration, the Government has issued above referred 4 notifications. As a result of issuance of notifications cited at Ref. (3) and (4), the sales of the Furnishing Cloth notified under entry 101 of Schedule “C” of MVAT Act are taxable @ 5% with effect from tat September 2012.
Section 14A has within it implicit notion of apportionment in the cases where the expenditure is incurred for the composite/indivisible activities in respect of which taxable and non-taxable income is received.
Notification No. 44/2012-Customs (ADD) in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on imports of Pre-sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates/PS Plates, originating in, or exported from, China PR imposed vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 108/2007-Customs, dated the 25th September,2007, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 627 (E), dated the 25th September, 2007, and have requested for extension of anti-dumping duty for a further period of one year, in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act;
It has also been argued that under the provisions of tenancy agreement, assessee had right to bequeath the flat, sub-let/lease it and was also entitled to raise loan against the flat. The assessee had also right to make alteration in the flat and therefore, considering these factors and also the fact that the lease was perpetual, the assessee had to be considered as owner of the flat, entitled to exemption under section 54.
As you are aware, the CBDT has laid special emphasis in the CAP 2012-13 for improving the quality of assessments. In this regard, a strategy has been mentioned at Annexure-II (pgs. 38-43) of CAP Document. 2. The then Member (IT) had asked the Chief-Commissioners of Income-tax (‘CCsIT’) to send list of top 100 quality assessments in respective charges. This direction of Member was not complied with by many of CCsIT which has been viewed seriously by the Board. It is expected from the field-formation that in future the directions of the Board will not be ignored.
In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act enables the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examination can also be used in evidence under the Income-tax Act.
In this view of the situation and after hearing both the parties, respectfully following the aforementioned order we decline to interference in the disallowance uphold by Ld. CIT(A) as the facts are not stated to be different. Accordingly this ground of the assessee for all the years is dismissed.
The submissions made on behalf of the assessee on this issue did not find favour with the learned CIT(Appeals). As regards the emphasis laid by the assessee on the order of Company Law Board, he held that the consent terms in the case of the assessee were agreed by the family as a part of the family settlement and the Company Law Board had simply observed in its order that the parties were prepared to abide by the said settlement. According to the learned CIT(Appeals), the purchase of shares was a result of mutual settlement amongst the family members and the expenditure incurred for this purpose was of personal nature.
