In T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 the Supreme Court observed that if the explanation given by an assessee is taken to be bona fide, the question of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not arise. Although the findings arrived at in assessment proceedings would constitute good material for penalty proceedings, yet in penalty proceedings, the matter has to be looked at differently since the consequences for the assessee would be different, and penal. Therefore, the rule of strict construction would apply.
The Commissioner’s Order-in-Appeal dated 27.05.2008 reflects that he accepted that the efficiency of the employees of an organization would be dependent on various factors, one such being the provision of a housing colony. He further conceded that these facilities would contribute to the enhancement of the productivity of the organization. Having stated so, the appellate authority surprisingly took the view that maintenance of the residential colony by the respondent Company was only an obligatory activity owing to situational exigencies and was not connected either directly or indirectly to the manufacture of its final products.
It is not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the assessee that interest earned even from third parties would be exempt from the charge of income-tax, in all types of transactions. The ratio therein is that, if an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application.
In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT in the order impugned have considered the material on record and if there is some evidence on the basis of which the primary and appellate authorities have based their conclusions, then the fact that better evidence ought to have been marshalled by the assessee and absence of the substantive evidence of invoices, was not considered, would not constitute a substantial question of law warranting consideration by this Court under Section 35G of the Act, in an appeal.
In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking is entitled to claim exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)
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%.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as ‘trading goods’ without payment of duty. the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 03-02-1998 in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The show cause notice dated 29.3.2000 was time barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal.
Items used in the manufacture of capital goods and parts thereof and are eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Union of India[1], notwithstanding, we are now called upon, in this batch of Writ Petitions, to adjudicate on the jurisdiction of the revisional/ appellate/ assessing authorities to levy tax under Section 4(1) and (8) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on SIM cards – pre-paid and post-paid; recharge coupons; value added services; telephone instruments, mobile handsets, modems and caller ID instruments; mobile telephone rentals; sharing of infrastructure; non-refundable deposits; refundable deposits etc.
