It is not in dispute that although the employee of the assessee during the course of recording statement had admitted and expressed willingness to pay service tax, in the affidavit-in-reply to the show-cause notice, the liability to pay service tax was specifically denied and even before the adjudicating authority it was contended that service tax was not leviable.
If in the sale it becomes reasonably necessary for the manufacturer of adaptable goods, to refer to the trademark of the relatable goods, such reference would not amount to an infringement of the trademark under which the relatable goods are sold, but has misapplied the evidence on record. The error committed is by proceeding upon the premise that the evidence establishes that the respondent manufactures gaskets specifically for the special sizes of pressure cookers manufactured by the appellant, ignoring that the evidence is to the contrary
The Court held that even if the defendant genuinely intended using the mark only to describe the aroma of the products, it would make no difference if the use of the mark is likely to be taken as a use as a trademark. The use of a registered trademark would constitute an infringement if it indicates a connection in the course of trade between the person and his goods.
On a plain reading of Rule 3, it is seen that the perquisite value of the residential accommodation provided by the employer is to be computed on actual amount of lease rental paid or payable by the employer and not on notional basis. Therefore, in our opinion, the contention of the revenue that the notional interest on the deposits paid by the employer to the landlord has to be taken into consideration while computing the perquisite value of the residential accommodation cannot be accepted in view of the express words used in Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as amended w.e.f. 1.4.01.
The assessee was not able to offer any plausible explanation for the sum of Rs.30,40,000/- which was surrendered by the assessee. Further, during the course of survey, it was found that certain sale invoices were either not recorded in the books of account or were under invoiced.
The Delhi High Court today asked the Institute of Charted Accountants in India (ICAI) to allow disabled persons appearing for the CA examination to take the their relatives’ help in writing the papers for them.
In the instant case, in order to examine the entitlement of the assessee for exemption under section 54, it is to be seen whether the assessee had constructed residential house within three years of the transfer of his property. For doing so, the meaning of the term ‘house’ is to be explored. The term ‘house’ has not been given any statutory definition and, thus, has to be assigned meaning as understood in common parlance. As per dictionary, it means abode, a dwelling place or building for human habitation. A building, in order to be habitable by a human being, is ordinarily required to have minimum facilities of washroom, kitchen, electricity, sewerage, etc.
The appellants are carrying on the business of financiers: they are not dealing in motor-vehicles. The motor-vehicle purchased by the customer is registered in the name of the customer and remains at all material times so registered in his name. In the letter taken from the customer under which the latter agrees to keep the vehicle insured, it is expressly recited that the vehicle has been given as security for the loan advanced by the appellants. As a security for repayment of the loan, the customer executes a promissory-note for the amount paid by the appellants to the dealer of the vehicle.
Honourable High court has agreed with the The Tribunal that the ‘make available’ condition was not satisfied inasmuch as no technical knowledge etc, was made available by the assessee to the Indian insurance companies operating in India. The Tribunal conclusions are based on an assessment of the factual matrix of the case at hand and are factual in nature. As there is no perversity in the findings, it does not give rise to a substantial question of law.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue has also made reference to the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act and also to the scope of the proviso inserted to Section 69C of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01/04/1999. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that film production is not an illegal business and therefore payments made though without accounting cannot be said to be illegal payments attracting explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act.
