In a writ petition filed by small investors, Karnataka High Court Held that provisions of Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act are contrary to provisions of Section 139A of the Act. Accordingly, provision of Section 206AA were made inapplicable to persons and was read down from the Act only for those persons whose income was less than the taxable limits. However, the High Court made it very clear that the provisions of the Section 206AA are applicable to the persons whose income is more than the taxable limits.
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 to successor of business on account of omission and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for determining the income chargeable to tax for these assessment years is valid?
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [122 (2005) DLT 612], albeit, in context of reduction of share capital. In that case also, the scheme of the reduction was such that many shareholders like the applicants in the instant case were deprivation of their shareholdings on payment of certain price. The Court took note of the general rule that it was the prescribed majority of the shareholders which is entitled to decide whether there should be a reduction in capital or not. After taking note of various judgments
The Speed Post is a new mode of sending post, and therefore, this new postal mode if is not mentioned in Statute specifically, even then because of above reason that service by Speed Post is included in generic word Post or Registered Post.
Issue -Whether the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse? In CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court held that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of fact, because it is difficult to predicate to what extent, the extraneous and irrelevant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact.
there is no liability to pay excise duty on the used capital goods, as a consequence the goods are not liable to be confiscated. They are, therefore, liable to be released without payment of any redemption fine. Moreover, there is also no question of the appellant paying any penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The capital goods if still under seizure are directed to be returned to the appellant without payment of any redemption fine. The question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
Whether a manufacturer is required to reverse/pay the amount equivalent to the CENVET credit taken by him in respect of inputs which are proved to have been used in the manufacture of goods which have been cleared under exemption from excise duty, in view of the specific provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (now 2004) read with Explanation II to Rule 6 (3) of the said rules which provide that no credit can be taken in respect of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods?
Assessee is engaged in the business of production and export of software from India to foreign countries and they are not in the business of providing technical services outside India, it is only producing and exporting software. The material on record clearly shows that except for these three years, rest of the certificates are correctly issued showing the amount involved in the production and export of the software at Clause 3(i). It is only in these three years certificates as against the Clause 3(i) nothing is typed and it is typed against Clause 3(ii). Hence, we are satisfied that there is a bona fide typographical error. The Chartered Accountant without carefully looking into those entries has issued the certificates, which has resulted in confusion.
Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was entered into on 27.10.1994 between the vendors P. Srinivsan, R. Dhanapal, T.T.V. Dhinakaran T.R. Harikrishnan G. Balasundaram, R. Annamalai, K. Sadagopal and M.K. Saravanan represented by the Power of Attorney M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., who in turn also appeared as a confirming party and M/s. Sudsun Housing I Ltd. as a purchaser, wherein the above said vendors agreed to convey the balance of 83.96% undivided share of the lands in favour of the purchaser.
In the case before us, it is not been established that the assessee has written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account. The Appellate Tribunal is justified in taking the view that as assessee had continued to show the admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet the same cannot be treated as assessment of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have seized to exist. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer shall have to prove that the assessee has obtained the benefits in respect of such trading liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof which is not the case before us.
