There is no justification on the part of the revenue in retaining the amount of interest earned on the seized amount especially, on the touchstone of the doctrine of accretion.
Provision under which the penalty was levied by the original adjudicating officer permits benefit of reduction in the penalty; subject to party paying the entire amount of tax determined interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days of the communication of the order. As provision appears to be pari materia to Section 11AC and the order of Gujarat High Court in the case of Akash Fashion Prints (P) Ltd. followed by the Tribunal, in case of provision of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, there is no infirmity in view adopted by the Tribunal. Revenue Appeal dismissed.
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.Vs.THE CHAIRMAN, ESI CORPORATION & ORS (DELHI HIGH COURT) -The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order FAO 124/2002 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No.19/99, whereby it was held that the appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act.
CIT v. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253) – The agents of the assessee (airline) were entitled to sell tickets at any price between the fixed commercial price and the published price. As a result the assessee would have no information regarding the final rates at which tickets were sold. It would be impracticable and unreasonable to accept the assessee to collect feedback from its numerous agents on the prices at which tickets are sold. Thus, it was held that the difference between the commercial price and the published price could neither be considered as commission or brokerage in the hands of the agents and hence was not liable to TDS
Explore the judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 620/2009 – Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vs. H M Media, Patna, regarding abatement of service tax.
CIT Vs M/s Anantha Gas Suppliers (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In the absence of any ambiguity, we have to take into consideration the plain language of the statutory provision and the obvious intention of the Legislature in using such a plain language. The Legislature merely said ‘gas cylinders including valves and regulators’, it has not spelt out any qualification as to the size of the gas cylinder so as to entitle to claim depreciation @ 100%. The decisive factor being the language employed in the statutory provision, we are unable to accede to the view that on account of the container which is in fact a cylinder being mounted on the chassis of the truck, the entire item has to be treated as transport vehicle for which the depreciation can be claimed at 40%.
Recently Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T&D vs. ADIT ruled that the Revenue can reopen the assessment proceedings on change of opinion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Such re-opening of the assessment by the Income Tax department is legal where no return has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year in dispute, high court said.
Delhi High Court (the High Court) in case of DIT v. SNC Lavalin International Inc [2011] 332 ITR 314 (Del) held that fees received by the taxpayer for providing technical drawings and reports in relation to infrastructure projects would qualify as Fees for Included Services under India-Canada tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, tax was to be deducted at 15 percent on payments made to the taxpayer. Further, the High Court observed that the term transfer as used in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty does not refer to absolute transfer of ownership; but refers to transfer of technical drawings or designs for the use or the benefit of other party.
With respect to the Scheme, the tax department had raised similar objections before the Gujarat High Court, which after considering the contentions of both, the tax department and the petitioner company had dismissed the petition thereon. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending before the Division Bench. The Delhi High Court, contrary to the order of the Gujarat High Court, has relied on settled judicial precedents and has passed the order sanctioning the Scheme.
Penalty under s 271FA – Failure to file annual information return — The penalty under s 271FA is leviable if the assessee fails to respond to the notice for failure of filing annual information return — as held by Gujrat High Court in Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd v DIT(CIB); Special Civil Application No. 14675 of 2010, 22 April 2011
