If the `flower bouquet’ is an arrangement of cut flowers, such arrangement of cut flowers by itself would not convert the said flowers into a different commercial commodity nor will it amount to and activity which would have an impact on the nature of the goods and will therefore not fall within the definition of the word “manufacture”
Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.
The profits from the offshore supply contract held to be not liable to tax in India on the ground that the transfer of title in the goods had passed outside India.
We hold that Section 80IA(9) does not affect the computability of deduction under various provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA, but it affects the allowability of deductions computed under various provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA, so that the aggregate deduction under Section 80IA and other provisions under heading ‘C’ of Chapter VIA do not exceed 100% of the profits of the business of the assessee. Our above view is also supported by the C.B.D.T. Circular No.772 dated 23121998, wherein it is stated that Section 80IA(9) has been introduced with a view to prevent the taxpayers from claiming repeated deductions in respect of the same amount of eligible income and that too in excess of the eligible profits.
Explore the Tribunal’s decision on Service Tax exemption (Notification No. 6/05-ST) for an assessee promoting a registered/branded entity. Details on the case and legal considerations.
The words ‘belonging to’ have to be read along with the Explanation of section 4 and under this Explanation the expression ‘transfer’ includes any agreement or arrangement. The assessee, in the instant case, was allotted the land by the State Government. It constructed sheds thereupon and rented out the same and derived income therefrom. The sheds were, therefore, under the domain and control of the assessee. Even if legal ownership had not passed to the assessee, the property in question belonged to it. The assessee was deriving rental income and collecting the same which itself showed that it was the assessee to whom the property belonged.
It was held that clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) cannot be said to be discriminatory and hence unconstitutional. This clause relates to set-off of unabsorbed business loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is lower. The HC also held that the approach of reading down a provision by modifying the language of a statute to achieve the intention of the legislature, cannot apply to such a provision.
Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to issue a show cause notice and to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the issues arising for his consideration relating to the payment of service tax by the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to substantiate its claims, by producing the necessary records. Thereafter, the respondent may pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the decisions of the supreme Court cited by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
Two flats purchased by the assessee were situated side by side. Builder also stated that he had effected modifications to the flats to make them one unit by opening the door in between the two apartments. The fact that the assessee could not have purchased both the flats in one single sale deed or could not have narrated the purchase of two premises as one unit in the sale deed could not make any difference.
Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi HC) – On this issue, the Delhi High Court observed that the justification of an order passed by the Tribunal recalling its own order is required to be tested on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466, dealing with the Tribunal’s power under section 254(2) to recall its order where prejudice has resulted to a party due to an apparent omission, mistake or error committed by the Tribunal while passing the order. Such recalling of order for correcting an apparent mistake committed by the Tribunal has nothing to do with the doctrine or concept of inherent power of review. It is a well settled provision of law that the Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own judgment or order on merits or reappreciate the correctness of its earlier decision on merits. However, the power to recall has to be distinguished from the power to review. While the Tribunal does not have the inherent power to review its order on merits, it can recall its order for the purpose of correcting a mistake apparent from the record.
