it would be wholly unreasonable to deduct tax at source on an amount which has not accrued to the Petitioner as income during the financial year in question, the entitlement of the Petitioner being contingent on the outcome of the challenge to the arbitral award.
The error in the order of the Commission in the present case lies in permitting the application to proceed without that satisfaction being recorded by the Commission, which is a fundamental aspect which goes to the root of its jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 245C.
In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee.
In the circumstances, we find no reason or justification to entertain the request for setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007, particularly after the lapse of time that is prescribed in the statutory remedy available under Section 254(2). The petition has been filed almost five and a half years after the order of the Tribunal with no reasonable or cogent explanation for the delay. As we have noted already, there is no merit in the alternate submission that the order of the Tribunal dated 28 May 2007 left open all the grounds of appeal. Plainly that was not so.
The Tribunal by its order dated 17 December 2010 restored the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the Tribunal by passing an order dated 27 December 2010 which states that it has been made under section 254. The Assessing Officer re-computed the loss at Rs.16.82 crores. In this view of the matter, once the Assessing Officer had given effect to the order of the Tribunal, his successor in office had no jurisdiction to pass a fresh order dated 27 December 2011.
In survey, an unaccounted stock was found lying at the railway plot of the assessee. The assessee claimed that the said stock was borrowed by it from sister concern OGPL to meet its export requirements for shipment in the month of March, 2005 and said quantities were returned to OGPL on purchase of order in the last weeks of March, 2005 and since the transaction was settled in the same year, it was not necessary to raise debit note or other documents as sought for by revenue.
Once the registration has been granted under section 12AA of the Act, the exemption under Section 11 cannot be withdrawn unless there is violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act or the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act is cancelled. The Tribunal held that the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Pruthivi Trust [1980] 124 ITR 488 is distinguishable on facts as the Trust in that case was carrying out profit making activity without any authorisation in the Trust Deed.
In the instant case the dividend earned on shares by the respondent assessee is from its investments in shares out of the respondent-assessee’s own funds. Consequently, the question of invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 to disallow expenditure would not arise.
Respondent assessee was interalia engaged in the business of execution of contracts for erection and commissioning of plants. The Assessing officer disallowed an amount of Rs.16.86 lacs paid by way of reimbursement to sister concerns for payment of salaries to their employees as they were deputed to the respondent assessee. This was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for failure to deduct tax. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing officer.
Whether Services in relation to erection, commissioning and installation of storage tank for storage of imported inputs/ammonia outside factory are eligible as input services?
