In the present case, we find that the assessing officer was clearly wrong in holding against the assessee by concluding that the assessee had not offered any explanation. This fact has been realized both by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is clear that the assessee had offered an explanation.
The instant case relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The Explanation in clause (a) to sub-section (10) of section 80-IB was brought in under Finance No.(2) Act of 2004, effective from 1-4-2005. Thus in the absence of any such requirement under section 80-IB(10), as it stood during relevant assessment year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the case of the revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificates.
The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before the inference of the inability of the company to pay its debts based on the legal fiction therein is drawn. The judgment is the specific recognition, in the context of the identical provision in the predecessor statute as Section 434(1)(a) of the current Act, of the general principle that a deeming provision must be strictly construed and all conditions therein must have been adhered to before the legal fiction thereunder can be seen to operate.
The assessing officer recorded reasons as required under section 148(2) and reopened the assessments for the earlier three years under section 147 of the Act and issued notices on 29.03.2004, 22.3.2005 and 14.7.2005 respectively. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer are identical for all the three years and are as under: –
What would be the rate of Service tax where the service is provided by the Chartered Accountants prior to 01.04.2012 and the invoice is also issued prior to 01.04.2012 but the payment is received after 01.04.2012.
We are of the considered opinion that the Finance Act, 2000 has made the complete procedure in its section 117. Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 reads as under: 117. Validation of certain action taken under Service Tax Rules. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority, sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid and to have always been valid as if the said sub-clauses had been in force at all material times and accordingly,-
Since the company’s counterclaim is by way of an unliquidated sum in damages, and the company has no defence to the petitioner’s claim herein, the company is permitted to furnish security to the extent of the petitioner’s claim of Rs.1,41,38,347/- within a fortnight from date whereupon this petition will remain permanently stayed. The company says that it has instituted winding-up proceedings in respect of its claim against the petitioner under the agreement of April 7, 2010.
In this appeal it is noticed that the Assessee has in fact after interim order granted by this Court has approached the Revenue and there are certain proposals given by the Revenue to the Assessee and it is submitted by Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel that initially the Assessee has deposited Rs.50 crores and as per the order of the Tribunal and further a sum of Rs.175 crores has been deposited after the order passed by this court and a sum of Rs.25 crores will be deposited by 10.02.2013 and modification of interim order to such extent should take care of the interest of both the Assessee and Revenue etc.
Whether the material obtained during search showing a variation in expenditure may be considered as evidence for disallowance of expenditure for a block period u/s 158BB of the Act and would not amount to assessment on estimation basis?
Seconded personal continue to be the employees on the roll of the member oil companies even during the period of secondment. These seconded employees continue to receive their salaries and emoluments from the member oil company of which they are employees. Therefore, not being employees of the respondent-assessee, the overseas allowances cannot be subject to deduction of tax at source.
