In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003.
The dispute as to classification of goods and as to whether or not they are covered by exemption Notification relates directly and proximately to the rate of duty applicable thereto for the purposes of assessment.
Position that interest can be charged pursuant to proceedings in normal course up to the date of decision u/s 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act to proceed with the application appears to be prevailing.
It is only vide the Finance Act, 2002 which came into effect from 1st April, 2003 the said capital receipt was now taxable under section 28(va). It is clarified by the Supreme Court that section 28(va) of the Act was amendatory and not clarificatory
Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay the service tax before actual receipt of the funds in the account of the assesee. Liability to pay service tax into the treasury will arise only upon the assessee receiving the funds and not otherwise.
In an appeal no.523/2013, the assessee was engaged in the operation of a Container Freight Station (CFS). It filed a return of income on 08.10.2008 declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.210713675/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961
The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 of IT act to reopen the assessment giving reasons to believe that assessee’s claim for set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against long term capital gain was not allowable as it was being set off after a lapse of 8 years.
Due to the absence of any profit element in the amount paid by the agents it was held that it was purely in the nature of reimbursement of cost of MaerskNet. Further, MaerskNet was part of the shipping business and therefore subject to DTAA.
The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 of IT act to reopen the assessment of the AY 2007-08 giving reasons to believe that there was non-disclosure of all facts with respect to deduction u/s 10A by the assessee and the assessee had taken the deduction without setting off the loss of one unit.
In the case of /s R.W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ACIT Bombay High Court held that AO must gives an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statement is relied upon by the revenue , violation of this right is clearly a breach of principles of natural justice.
