On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly. 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA) deals with tax holidays for eligible businesses. Sub-section (5) of section 80-IA of ITA provides that for the purpose of determining the quantum of the deduction, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the taxpayer. This deeming fiction is applicable from the initial assessment year i.e. the first year of claim of the deduction.
The assessee manufactured cars using the brand name Maruti. It entered into an agreement with Suzuki, Japan, pursuant to which it began manufacturing cars using the brand name Suzuki. The TPO issued a show-cause notice in which he alleged that the substitution of the brand name Maruti for the name Suzuki meant that the assessee had soldthe Maruti brand to Suzuki. On that basis, he determined the arms length sale proceeds at Rs. 4,420 crores.
Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed.
The Bombay high court last week ruled that a labour dispute can be referred to the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of an unrecognised workers’ union. In this dispute between Bharat Forge Ltd and Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, the recognised union had 800 workers at the Pune plant.
In a case where a company is dealing in the sale and purchase of shares, prima-facie the profits derived from the sale and purchase of shares would be treated to be business income of the assessee since the assessee is a trader in shares, that does not mean that a trading firm cannot make long term investment in shares and income from sale of such shares may fall under the head of capital gains but when a trading firm is involved the onus would be heavily on such a firm to show that this investment was actually a long term investment.
There is discretion available to the Company Judge in a creditor’s winding-up petition, both at the time of admission and at the post-advertisement stage; the Company Court may refuse to admit a winding-up petition founded on an ex parte decree if it finds the original claim or cause of action to be substantially mired in doubt.
The assessee-trust was a public charitable trust engaged in education of women. In the earlier years, the assessee was granted exemption u/ss 11, 10(22) & 10(23C)(vi). The assessee’s application for renewal of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was rejected on the ground that (i) the objects permitted the non-educational object of constructing an ashram
The Circular No. 98/1/2008-ST dated 01-01-2008 issued by the 1st respondent is in challenge. On a true and fair construction of Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules, it is clear that where in respect of a works contract service tax has been paid, no option to pay service tax under the composition scheme could be exercised. There is no ambiguity in this provision. The entitlement to avail the benefits of the composition scheme is only after an option is exercised under Rule 3(3) of the 2007 Rules and this provision specifically enjoins a disqualification for exercise of such option where service tax had been paid in respect of a works contract. To put it succinctly, where service tax has been paid in respect of a works contract, the eligibility to exercise an option to avail the benefits of the composition scheme under the 2007 Rules is excluded.
