We do not find how Officers lower down in the hierarchy can take decisions to file Appeals and that too against the decision of the Tribunal. The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court.
Issue- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A)’s order and rejecting the departmental appeal in accepting the Assessee’s plea that the contribution of Rs.39,68,000/- paid towards ‘heavy repair fund’ is covered by the principle of mutuality and is not chargeable to tax.
We have heard both sides at great length and with their assistance, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has noted the basic facts and about which there is no dispute.
It was claimed by the Petitioner P. C. Joshi who is an advocate by profession that section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act 2009 and substituted by Finance Act 2011, proceeds to levy Service Tax on the Advocates.
It is unfortunate that the Revenue insists in arguing Appeals in this manner and for subsequent Assessment Years. The Revenue ought to have been fair and brought to the notice of this Court the fact that its Appeal challenging the very findings and conclusions for prior Assessment Years has been dismissed by this Court on merits.
We hold that both employees’ and employer’s contributions are covered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act and the Alom Extrusions judgment. Hence the Tribunal was right in holding that payments thereof are subject to benefits of Section 43B.
In the instant case, the assesse has issued shares to its holding company at premium (INR 8591) amounting to INR 246.38 crores. The said transaction was reported in Form 3CEB, although assesse claimed TP Provisions are not applicable on income arising on such transactions.
Assessing Officer has observed that the contentions of the Assessee are considered, but found not acceptable. From the contentions, what has been deduced is that the particulars of income filed by the Assessee were not correct or to put it in the language of the Act
M/s Pransukhlal Bros. v. ITO (Bombay High Court) , ITA WP Lodging no. 2124 of 2014 dt. 20/8/2014 In this case, we find that the order disposing of the objections refers to and relies upon investigation carried out by Sales Tax department, the information put up by Sales Tax department on it’s website and the affidavit cum- declaration filed by the defaulting parties with the Sales Tax authorities.
This is one more instance of the Revenue urging before this Court that firstly a film production unit or a Company is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the said Act).
