All these appeals are filed against the order of CESTAT dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to make payment of predeposit amount of Rs.3 crores as ordered by the CESTAT. Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.
No action can be taken under the section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year
Where the revenue has failed to establish before the Court that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment, the exercise of the power to re-open the assessment beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year would fail to fulfill the statutory condition precedent to a valid exercise of the power to re-open an assessment beyond a period of four years
The work that the respondents perform is in the nature of a creative art and their work is neither subject to an order required from the Art Director nor from any of the artists. In performing their work, they have to bring to their work, their artistic ability, talent and a sense of perception for the purpose of production of drama involving in the course of such work, the application of the correct technique and the selection of the cast, the play, the manner of presentation, the light and effects and so on. In effect, the work they do is creative art which only a person with an artistic talent and requisite technique can manage. To call such a person, a skilled or a manual worker is altogether inappropriate.
The assessee had filed a return of income on 28 November 2000 for assessment year 2001-01 and declared an income of Rs.89.75 crores. On 14 March 2002, the assessee filed a revised return of Rs.80.75 crores. The assessment proceedings commenced on 18 November 2002 with a notice under Section 143(2). The assessment order was passed on 31 March 2003 by which the Assessing Officer determined the income at Rs.97.09 crores under Section 115JA. TDS certificates amounting to Rs. 1,44,34,030/- were submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings. Interest has been allowed to th
Mr. X. held certain shares in dematerialized account with a depository. Mr. X executed nomination in the prescribed form following the prescribed procedures in favor of his nephew (Mr Y). Upon the demise Mr. X, wife of Mr. X (say Mrs. X) filed a suit claiming an interest in those shares as a legal heir and representative. The Bombay High Court interpreted provisions of Section 109A of the Companies Act (Nomination of Shares), the Depositories Act and the bye law 9.11 of National Securities Depository Limited [NSDL] and held that where a shareholder of a company executes valid nomination form in the prescribed manner, upon death of the shareholder (i.e. Mr. X), the rights in shares including ownership rights vests in the nominee (Mr. Y) to the exclusion of other person (i.e. Mrs. X). The High Court further held that the bye law 9.11 of NSDL makes the nominee’s position superior to even a testamentary disposition and that the non obstante clause in bye law no. 9.11.7 gives the nomination the effect of the testamentary disposition itself.
From the language of section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot be levied once again on the assessee who has suffered the deduction. Once it is established that the tax has been deducted at source from the salary of the employee, the bar under section 205 of the Act comes into operation and it is immaterial as to whether the tax deducted at source has been paid to the Central Government or not, because elaborate provisions are made under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax.
In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in 2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC), the Supreme Court approved this decision in M.M. Thomas (supra) and said that the High Court possesses all powers in order to correct the errors apparent on the face of record. In D.N. Singh Vs. CIT, reported in (2010) 325 ITR 349, the full bench of Patna High Court held High Court has power to review its order under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. It referred to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the said judgment and held that as laid down in M.M. Thomas and approved in Hongo India (supra), the High Court has the inherent power of review, being a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1963 AIR SC 1909 held that power of review inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
The above ruling lays down that restriction under section 80-IA(9) affects the allowability of total deduction from the profits of the eligible undertaking/unit and not the computation of deduction under various provisions under heading „C? of Chapte
Where it has not been established before the Court that there has been any failure on the part of the Commissioner(Appeals) or the Tribunal to take into consideration relevant and germane circumstances; consequently, it would not be appropriate or proper for this Court to substitute its own conclusion of fact for a conclusion which has been arrived at by the Tribunal.
