Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty was leviable as the appellant itself had surrendered the said amount representing the difference in the sundry creditors in order to buy peace. He, thus, submitted that there was no concealment of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The CIT (A) after considering entire evidence of record found that purchase and sale transactions were proved. He further found that payment of the sale price was made to the assessee through bank channel and not in cash as such the transactions are actual transactions and not a fictitious accommodation entries. The sale transactions cannot be disbelieved only for the reason that the assessee could not give the identity of the purchasers.
The Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal No.2791 of 2005 preferred by the department vide judgment and order dated 21.7.2010, upheld the findings recorded by the Tribunal that reversal of 8% under 57 CC is not applicable as ‘Bagassee’ is not a final product, but it is a waste. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the judgment dated 22.11.2004 of Tribunal, it was specifically referred in para 2 that the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise in the case of CCE v. Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.2.2004.
With the insertion of the Explanation-I to Section 32 w.e.f. 1.4.1998 there is no doubt that where the assessee is the lessee of the building in which he carries on business which is not owned by him but in respect of which the assessee holds a lease or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by the assessee of any structure or doing of any work in or in relation to by way of renovation, extension or for improvement to the building, then the provisions of the Income Tax Act, will apply as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee.
In the present case by an unilateral act of the assessee in writing back the amount of gratuity of Rs. 32,39,929/- which was allowed as expenditure in the Assessment Year 1972-73 would not be treated as remission or cessation of the trading liability so as to attract the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable.
When a person has a dual capacity, as an individual as well as karta of HUF, and notice under section 148 is intended to be addressed to HUF, it is necessary to specifically mention that notice was/is being addressed to him in his capacity as karta of HUF.
Service tax is statutory liability. It is a tax which is required to be collected by the service provider from the person to whom service is provided, and thereafter to be deposited with government treasury within the prescribed time.
Applying the ratio of the judgment in Chandra Prakash Agrawal (supra) to the present case, we find that the Tribunal did not commit any error in recording findings that since nothing was found in the search operations on 26.10.1995 and that though the warrant of authorisation under section 132A was issued on the following day on 27.10.1995,
No appeal is required to be filed when tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The conditions mentioned in Clause-3 of the Circular dated 27.3.2000, are not attracted in this appeal. The circular has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and is binding upon the Department.
Proviso to Clause (a) of Explanation under section 158BB of the Act for the purpose of determination of undisclosed income or loss of each previous year for the purpose of aggregation is to be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act without giving effect to set off or brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.
