Court in Writ Petition No.866 of 2010 filed by the assessee, held by order dated 29th April 2010 that the ruling of Authority for Advance Ruling in the respondent-assessec’s case would not be over-ruled by subsequent decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of another assessee.
Section 127 H of the Customs Act, 1962, prior to its amendment by Act No.22 of 2007, empowered the Settlement Commission to grant immunity, inter alia, either wholly or in part of any part of the interest. With effect from 1 June 2007 an amended provision was brought into force by which the Settlement Commission cannot any longer grant a waiver or immunity from the liability to pay interest.
CLB has rendered a finding that the application for amendment was allowed for determination of the issues between the parties and for the purpose of framing issues for avoiding multiplicity of litigations.
The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability.
The appellant may have a very good case on merits and would possibly be able to establish in an appropriate proceeding that the respondent have acted in a fraudulent manner and defrauded him to Rs. 2 crore. However, in proceedings for winding up the company, the Court cannot adjudicate upon a bona fide disputed debt. It is well settled principle of company law that wherever there is a bona fide disputed debt, the petition for winding up of a company is not appropriate remedy to enforce the debt. In the circumstances, no fault is found with the order of the Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is to be dismissed.
We find that respondent-assessee is receiving royalty and fees for technical services rendered in India. In terms of Article 12 of DTAA, royalty and fees for technical services received in India by a person resident outside India are not liable to tax in India in excess of 10% of the gross amount received. On examination of the DTAA, we find that in terms of Article 2(3) thereof the trade tax paid in Germany is one of the taxes to which DTAA applies.
The Bombay High Court today (17.01.2013) granted ad-interim stay against coercive recovery pursuant to Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX, Dated 1st January, 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Though the respondent-assessee had purchased flat Nos. 416A and 516A it was only purchase of one residential house. Further, the Tribunal held that two flats were joined together before the respondent assessee became the owner of the two flats. The Certificate from the society also established the fact that two flat Nos. 416A and 516A were joined together and were considered as one residential house.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 07/06/2007 held that foreign travel of the officers did not give rise to any benefit of an enduring nature but enabled efficient running of its business and therefore was revenue in nature. Thus the deduction on account of expenses on account of foreign travel was allowed as claimed by the respondent.
It is a undisputed finding of fact that the collected bagasse has been used by the assessee to make briquettes for fuel as that indeed is the business of the assessee. The reliance upon the circular No.772, dated 23-12-1998 by the revenue is misplaced. The aforesaid Circular does not restrict its benefits only to local bodies.
