Shroff United Chemicals Limited. versus The Union of India – The Bombay high court last week described the denial of interest on refund of service tax by the deputy commissioner as ‘specious’ in the case, Shroff United Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India. It asked the revenue authorities to pay interest for the delayed refund. The firm, in anticipation of import of intellectual property services, had obtained service tax registration.
This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 3-4-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) bearing 1TA No. 1020/Bang/08 for the assessment year 2005- 06.
CIT v Tata SSL Ltd (Mumbai High Court) – by paying the impugned charges to Mahanagar Gas Ltd., the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The Tribunal held that the facilities served the sole purpose of supplying the gas to the assessee’s work and, therefore, it was an integral part of the profit earning process and facilitated in carrying on the assessee’s business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit to the assessee.
Delhi High Court judgment on Writ Petition No. 328, 340/2010 – Ravina and Associates vs CIT. Stay on recovery of tax demand. Key details here.
CIT v Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – ITAT, on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease. It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds. The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity. The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted. It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration. The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant. Applying the aforesaid test, we hold that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 243, as it then stood.
Deepak Engineering Works and Others v CIT and Others (Patna High Court)- , section 278B, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they are not responsible for any of the offence committed by a firm / company. First proviso to section 278B(1), quoted above, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they were not responsible for acts of omission or commission committed by the firm / company. The question as to whether petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were actually involved in this case or not is a question of fact which is to be determined during the trial and onus is on the petitioners to prove that they were not responsible for any act of omission or commission of the firm i.e. petitioner no.1 M/s Deepak Engineering Works. Accordingly, in view of statutory provisions contained in section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act) first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.
CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel- The assessee running coaching classes followed mercantile system of accounting. Total fees for the entire course, which may be of two years duration was taken in advance at the time of admission of the students. For the A.Y. 1997-1998, the assessee claimed that the fees received in the relevant year were to be carried forward to the next assessment year as they related to the next financial year. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.
Ramalingam Charities Vs CIT, Salem (Madras High Court) – Tribunal considered the claim of the revenue as well as the assessee and pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Trust deed was not existing solely for the educational purposes and that the trust had engaged itself in other activities by running orphanages, Kalyana mandapam, money lending business, etc., it cannot be held that the Trust was one solely carrying on the activities of educational institutions. The Tribunal further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11(5) of the Act and had diverted the funds to its sister concern, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Honourable HC also held that since the assessee has not satisfied the requirement under Section 11(5) to claim benefit under Section 12 of the Act so not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 for amount received as corpus fund.
CIT, Meerut v The District Excise Office (Allahabad High Court) – The argument of the learned senior standing counsel that Section 206C does not find place in any of its clauses of sub section (1) and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable ignores the clause referred to above in Sections 246 and/or 246A of the Act. The clause referred to above does not relate to any particular section of the Act. It will be attracted subject to fullfilment of its ingredients. It is in the nature of a residuary clause and gives a right to an assessee to challenge an order by way of appeal if he is so aggrieved subject to the condition that he denies his liability to be assessed under the Act.
Shayama Sanjay Shah v CIT (Gujrat High Court) – Though it is true that powers under section 273A of the Act are discretionary powers, it is equally true that powers conferred under a statute are required to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the said statute. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the Commissioner instead of recording satisfaction or otherwise in respect of the grounds prescribed under section 273A of the Act, has rejected the petition on irrelevant grounds, firstly, on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for failure in filing the return of income belatedly, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner had already paid the tax payable in consequence of the order of penalty, which ground in view of the provisions of section 273A of the Act should have, in fact, weighed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Commissioner has not exercised discretion as required under section 273A of the Act and as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to the relevant factors and as such cannot be sustained.
