Finance Act, 1992 made suitable amendments to the Wealth Tax Act and sec. 2(ea)(v)(b) defines “urban land”. But it does not clearly explain the status of agricultural lands situated in urban areas. In spite of that, the income tax authorities were giving exemptions to such lands till recently. This was evidenced by a document downloaded from that National Website of the Income Tax Department of India, a copy of which is attached. The said document which showed the Tax Obligation under Wealth Tax Act, clearly stated by a note “Agricultural land situated in urban area is not liable to wealth-tax”. This html document was downloaded on 06/05/2010. But, subsequently, this document has been removed from the Website. Quite coincidentally, the tax authorities have commenced taxing such urban agricultural lands citing that the Act does not exempt such lands.
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
Talluri Srinivas v. ICAI (Delhi HC)- Section 21B(3), read with rule 18 of the Rules makes it clear that the Disciplinary Committee is obliged to offer the member, whose conduct is under examination, an opportunity of being heard and to comply with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the period during which the interim stay of the disciplinary proceedings remained in force, the petitioner cannot be faulted for delaying the proceedings. The petitioner was entitled to agitate his legal rights, and merely because that led to deferment of the disciplinary proceedings, the said fact cannot be held against the petitioner.
The discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the book results have not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that although the quantity of cotton seed, mustard and groundnut crushed during the previous year were shown separately but the yield of oil and oil cakes have been given in consolidated form at 13.02 per cent and 83.91 per cent respectively. Further, the sales of oil and oil cakes have been shown in the manufacturing account in consolidated form although there was a wide variation in the market price of these products.
If the revenue is to reply upon some documents for some part of them to claim that the documents reveal some undisclosed income of the assessee which has escaped tax and is earned during the block period, at the same time not giving same importance to the other parts of the documents, but understanding the other clauses by way of inference or on a logic attributing certain motives to the assessee, it is not a proper way of reading the document, assuming that it is relatable to the search and has a link to the search.
It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254.
Mitra Logistic Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO – There is no dispute about the fundamental posit ion that as long as the payments are for reimbursements, and not expenditure, the tax deduct ion obligations do not come into play and accordingly, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i ) cannot be made either. In support of this proposition, our attention is invited to a coordinate bench decision in the case of Satyendra Jhunjhunwalla –vs. – ITO (ITA No. 1988/Kol. /2009; order dated 11.11.2011). He, however, fairly submits that as this aspect of the matter, i.e. payment being in the nature of reimbursement , has not been examined by the authorities below, the matter can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the above principle.
As per the Finance Bill, 2012, of Govt. of India, there have been vast changes in the taxation provisions relating to Service Tax. As per the new provisions, services of all types unless these have been specifically exempted in the negative list ( Vide Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax Dated 20th June, 2012) , shall become chargeable to service tax. As a consequence, domain registration charges have also become chargeable to service tax.
The procedure to be followed in the matter of execution of the order made by the company court is different from that laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. As per section 635, it is sufficient to produce to the Court which is required to execute its order, a certified copy of the order sought to be executed. It is not necessary to comply with the procedure laid down in section 39 and Order 21, rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil procedure and get the order first transferred by the Court which made it to the Court which is to enforce it and then make an application to execute it .
Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Adani Pharmachem (P.) Ltd. – 2008 (12) STR 593 (Tri-Ahmd) cited by the appellants has held that in case where the sale is on FOB/CIF basis, the place of removal has to be load port only. Further in the case of Cauvery Stones Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem -2010 (18) STR 73 (Tri-Chennai) has held that since the price of the goods exported was on FOB basis and therefore the ownership of the goods exported remained with the assessee up to the port of shipment and they also bore the risk of the goods up to the port of shipment. It was further held that the place of removal is the port and GTA service from factory gate to port of shipment is an input service and hence credit of service tax paid thereon is admissible
