It appears a little strange that when the assessee either himself or through his authorized representative is not attending the hearing to argue the case, still the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits.
It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings. The Inquiry Officer functions as quasi judicial officer. He is not merely a representative of the department.
It clearly shows that State VAT department has literally plundered most of the assets of a company without any legal justification. Now, these commercial tax officials would also be part of GST machinery.
HC held that that it was inappropriate and illegal on the part of Director General, Income Tax (Exemptions) not to take a decision on Assessee’s application filed for seeking approval as required under Section 80IB(7)(c).
If in this cavalier fashion the Commercial Tax Department functions and withdraws huge sums of money without valid service, it would be difficult for big business houses to carry on their business. Such business houses would be forced to shift their business outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Taking of machinery and equipment on hire would not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C of Act.The said contract i.e. taking of machinery and equipment on hire also cannot be treated with a contract for supply of labour.
Royalty and fee for technical assistance are revenue in nature if upon license termination rights created in favour of assessee gets extinguished.
Insofar as requirement of registration with department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, there is no provision in Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction.
No interest under Section 201(1A) of Act, 1961 could have been recovered from alleged Assessee in default for the reason that interest could have been charged for the period when TDS fell due and actual amount of tax is paid by recipient Assessee.
In Ajay Kumar v. ITO, the division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act will not be available when the assessee has not started construction in the purchased plot within the stipulated time.
