CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) – If Assessing Officer Finds that the actual rent received is less than the “fair/market rent‟ because the assessee has received abnormally high interest free security deposit, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, by no stretch of imagination, the notional interest on the interest free security can be taken as determinative factor to arrive at the “fair rent”. Section. 23(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not mandate this.
DIT vs. Maersk Co Ltd as agent of Mr. Henning Skov – In the instant case, it was held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 234B upon failure on the part of the employer to deduct tax at source as the obligation to deduct tax at source is upon the employer. The assessee was only liable to pay tax directly under section 191 of the Act.
Whether a person who is not actual service provider, but discharges the Service tax liability on the Taxable Services, under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on inputs/inputs services/Capital Goods for payment of GTA Services tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services? Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 6.5.2010 in CEA No.99 of 2008 CCE v. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd . etc . Appeal Dismissed
Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
CIT V. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (ITA No. 164 of 2008) (Del)- Taxpayer filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31 March 2003 declaring a loss. The due date of filing the return of loss in terms of provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act,1 961 (the Act) was 31 October 2001. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not allow the carry forward of unabsorbed loss including the unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the AO’s order and held that the taxpayer was not allowed to carry forward the losses by virtue of section 80 of the Act. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 2000-0 1 and 2001-02. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the tax authorities filed an appeal before the High Court.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
Andhra Bombay Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether when assessee is able to lead evidence to show that not only was there reasonable cause for taking money in cash, but amount did not also represent unaccounted money either of assessee or of persons from whom they were taken, normally that should be sufficient to hold that penalty is not justified – Held, yes
The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as ‘trading goods’ without payment of duty. the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 03-02-1998 in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The show cause notice dated 29.3.2000 was time barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal.
