In the present case the Hon’ble High Court while accepting the Writ filed by the assessee, restored the matter back to the Tribunal by observing that the Judicial Functions should not be performed in the arbitrary manner.
In, the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that no penalty could be levied until it is proved that there was an active concealment or there is deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
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.
