The Delhi high court last week held that the clause in a tender document for building contract permitting 5 per cent bid security amount to be forfeited in case of a non-responsive bid is “clearly penal in nature and thus provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act would apply.” It cannot be categorized as a reasonable pre-estimate of damages for a non-responsive bid and thus the bank guarantee for 5 per cent of the bid amount cannot be encashed in such an eventuality. The high court ruled this in the case of IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Ltd vs National Highway Authority of India. The “request for proposal” submitted by the firm for a road project in Tamil Nadu being responsive, the forfeiture was illegal the firm was entitled to refund of the amount from NHAI, the judgment said.
CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)- Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no challenge to the finding that certificate issued to the assessee under Section 195(2) was never cancelled and in absence thereof, the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default. In view of the said unchallenged finding, the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained. Once it is so, we are of the view that the questions referred need not be gone into.
Recently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the High Court) in the case of CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Private Limited [201 1-TIOL-88-HC-P&H-IT-LB] held that if the taxpayers used certain devices to conceal true nature of the transaction, it was the duty of the taxing authority to unravel the device and determine its true character.
The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal put forth by the appellant, are set out hereunder:-(a) The second respondent is a private company incorporated on October 23, 1980. Late G. Kandaswamy was in charge of the second respondent-company and other group companies until his demise. The appellant could not involve in the day-to-day affairs of the second respondent-company and other companies as he had to travel to the United Kingdom often for his treatment. During the life time of the said G. Kandaswamy, respondents Nos. 3 and 5 have been actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and running the same. The appellant is entitled to about 28.29 per cent. of the shares in the second respondent-company pursuant to the demise of his father. After the demise of his father, respondents Nos. 3 and 5 were running the second respondent-company as if it was their proprietary concern and the appellant was kept in isolation as regards the affairs of the company.
Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs CIT, Kolkata (Dated: March 04, 2011)- Income Tax – Sections 10(33), 14A, 94(7) – Whether dividend stripping is allowable – Whether a premeditated transaction by virtue of which an assessee earns tax free income and squares off profits with losses is permissible if it is within the four corners of law. – Assessee’s appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;
In these appeals filed by the revenue, the only question raised is whether the assessees are entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit under Section 11 5JB of the Income Tax Act. Even though in respect of one assessee, the provision involved is Section 11 5JA, there is no need to consider the issue separately because applicability of Section 80HHC in the computation of book profit is one and the same both under Section 11 5JA and 11 5JB of the Act. CIT vs. Packworth Udyog (Kerala High Court – Full Bench)
Interocean Shipping (I) (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India (Delhi High Court) Dated: 03-03-2011 – Service Tax – Ship broking and other activities – Section 65(105)(zzb)read with 65(19) – Business Auxiliary Services – The said services became taxable by the Finance Act, 2003, whereby sub-section (zzb) to section 65(105) was enacted – The said clause has to be read with section 65(19). The assessment order shows that the primary and core issue raised was is with regard the actual nature and character of the activity undertaken by the petitioners.
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. JCIT & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) – Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the sum of Rs.1,43,35,000/- which represents the liability on account of pension on the basis of the resolution of the Board payable to the employee till their death. Whether, the liability on account of pension on the basis of the provisions made should be allowed for the period till the death of the employees or all liabilities should be limited for the period of accounting year relevant to this assessment year.
Mayfair Resorts Vs. CCEC, Ludhiana – The assessee is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category ‘Mandap Keeper’. During audit for the period of 2004-05, it was noticed by the Department that the assessee surrendered Rs.35 lacs to the Income Tax Department as additional taxable income on the said amount being found cash at the premises of the assessee and the assessee being unable to explain the source of income. According to the department, since only business of the assessee was providing service of ‘Mandap Keeper’, the amount represented proceeds of services provided by the assessee. Accordingly, amount was treated as subject to service tax vide order-in-original dated 28.1.2009. On appeal, the said order was set aside on the ground that without making any enquiry and in absence of any statutory presumption, the department could not treat the amount as representing proceeds of services provided by the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal to this effect in Kipps Education Centre Bathinda Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2009(13) STR 422 was followed. The said order has been affirmed by the Tribunal.
Items used in the manufacture of capital goods and parts thereof and are eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
