– We were unaware that the law required anyone to give an explanation for having tea, whether in the morning, noon or night. One might take tea in a variety of ways, not all of them always elegant or delicate, some of them perhaps even noisy.
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a Transfer Pricing Order dated 31 st October, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing
The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association in the State of Maharashtra has filed this Writ Petition seeking certain directions relating to appointment of members of the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Appellant could not point out any provision under which the plaintiff is required to seek prior permission for running medical dispensary with only outpatient treatment facilities without any indoor work in her residential flat, more particularly, when the whole flat is being used for residential purpose and medical dispensary is being run in an area less than 30 sq.mtr.
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
Issue – Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the wrong claim made by the assessee is not filing of inaccurate particulars, ignoring the fact that the assessee has knowingly claimed the setting off of loss against other source
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.
