Where despite the goods having been cleared on payment of customs duty as assessed under Heading 85.44 (which was supported by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the DRI searched the premises of the assessee and threatened that unless the differential duty payable under Heading 90.01 was paid, the directors and employees of the assessee would be arrested and the consignments confiscated HELD passing severe strictures that:
9. In the instant case, since it is not in dispute that the amount, in question, has already been utilized by the Assessee for the purpose of its business from time to time and by Board Resolution the Assessee has transferred the amount to the Reserve Fund Account, and considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar
9. Having considered the contentions, in our opinion, the instructions cannot be interpreted as a Statute though it is pursuant to the power conferred under Section 268-A of the Income Tax Act. What the Court has to consider is the plain language of the paragraph and the object behind the said provisions. The object appears to be not to burden courts and Tribunals in respect of matters
Motwane Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Mumbai HC) – The Tribunal was right in law in holding that land used for internal roads of the factory and play ground for workers of the factory is taxable as wealth of the company, when the factory building has not been charged for wealth-tax .
There is a difference between dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and dismissal of an Appeal. While the dismissal of a SLP does not result in merger of the judgment of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and there is no affirmation, the dismissal of an Appeal results in an affirmation and merger of the order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court.
Where the assessee had its own funds as well as borrowed funds and it advanced funds to its sister concerns for allegedly non-business purposes and the question arose whether the AO was justified in disallowing the interest on the borrowed funds on the ground that they had been used for non-business purposes, HELD: Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that t
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the assessee’s contention that when the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax, there is no question of charging interest under Section 234B of the Act by relying upon the decision in the case of Motorola Inc. rendered by Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT, “A” Bench, Delhi, reported in (2005) 95 ITD 269.”
34. For the purpose of taxation the authorities under the Act have proceeded on the basis that the fees received by the Appellant was for the entire Indian Project as such chargeable to tax. 35. Two basic questions which, thus, arise for our consideration are :
The very purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company. This being the dominant purpose of the transaction, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
