The appeal was filed in June, 2000. Our Court in the matter of CIT Vs. Vijay V.Kavekar in Income Tax Appeal No.78 of 2007 dated 29th July, 2011 held that the CBDT Circular No.2/2011 issued on 9th February 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals under Section 260A in cases where the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs. The said circular has retrospective effect and would also apply in respect of pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal would also not be entertained on the ground that the tax effect is less than Rs.10/- lacs.
Tribunal were correct in taking the view that the refund was liable to be paid to the present respondents as service tax was not passed on to the buyers/customers and there was no unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal was justified in recording the aforesaid findings. In the facts of the case, it was not possible to ascribe any wilful suppression or mis-statement on the part of the assessee for not paying excise duty because during the period in question, various decisions of the Tribunal were to the effect that the activity of cutting, bending, bunching of plates or channels in which the assessee was engaged, did not amount to manufacturing activity. In Continental Foundation Jt. Venture v. CCE 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), Apex Court observed that when there was bona fide doubt as to non-excisability of the goods due to divergent views of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the extended period of 5 years cannot be invoked. Mere failure or negligence in not taking license or not paying duty, is not sufficient for invoking extended period.
Reading of section 54EA of the Act makes it very clear that in case, the whole or any part of the net consideration of sale is invested in Specified Securities within a period of six months after the date of transfer, the deduction under section 54EA is available. The Net Consideration has been defined in Explanation to section 54EA of the Act.
Section 54EC of the Act having given the respondent a choice of investing either in the bonds of Rural Electrification Corporation Limited or the National Highway Authority, the revenue cannot insist that the respondent ought to have invested its capital gain on sale of property in the bonds of the National Highway Authority.. The statue itself provides that the assessee, who is subject to long terms capital gain tax, can avail of exemption under Section 54EC of the Act if he invests in bonds of either the National Highway Authority of India or the Rural Electrification Corporation Limited.
If the assessee treats expenditure on acquisition of assets as application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a) and if the assessee claims depreciation on the value of such assets, then in order to reflect the true income to be available for application for charitable purposes, the assessee should write back in the accounts the depreciation amount to form part of the income to be accounted for application for charitable purposes.
The issue of certificate under Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Act is mandatory on fulfilment of conditions enumerated under the rules. For determining the existing and estimated liability of the assessee where tax deduction is from income other than dividends, the Assessing Officer is to be guided by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 28AA of the Rules.
The application for direction for sale was specially assigned to His Lordship. His Lordship should have disposed of the same either by dismissing it if His Lordship so feels it proper or allow it directing Official Liquidator to take expeditious steps for sale. Further directions for advertisement and conduct of sale would remain with the learned Company Judge.
Power of winding up of a company was conferred on the Court and notwithstanding any arbitration agreement between the parties the arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to pass the said order. We fail to appreciate, how this decision would help us to decide the present controversy.
In view of the amendment to the IT Act, the Assessing Officer has got power to refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of valuation. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that CPWD rates adopted by the DVO were not correct without assigning any reason to arrive at such a conclusion. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
