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Once the registration has been granted under section 12AA of the Act, the exemption under Section 11 cannot be withdrawn unless there is violation of provisions of Section 13 of the Act or the registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act is cancelled.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?
It is an admitted position that no notice under Section 143(2) had been issued while making assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal has discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But in a case where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee.
We do not find substance in the submission of the Respondent-Revenue that there is no requirement to offer a personal hearing as the same was not asked for by the Petitioner. This court in the matter of Sahara Hospitality (supra) has held that it is mandatory wherever it is possible to do so on the part of the Revenue to grant a personal hearing before passing an order under Section 127(2) of the Act. Thus merely because the Petitioner had not specifically asked for a personal hearing it will not absolve the revenue of its obligation to ordinarily grant such a hearing.
Input services used in manufacture of exempted intermediate product is eligible for credit, if such intermediate product is used in manufacture of dutiable final product In the present case, ONGC is a manufacturer both of dutiable and exempted products. Crude oil as well as natural gases are exempted products. The Tribunal has held against the Appellant in regard to its entitlement to avail of input service on the ground that crude oil at Mumbai Offshore is in itself a saleable commodity since it is transferred or sold in part to other purchasers at Mumbai Offshore.
The recovery of the demand on these three heads has to be stayed in view of a strong prima facie case being made out. The balance due and payable by the assessee would work out to Rs.159.49 crores. The assessee has under cover of its letter dated 28 March 2013 paid an amount of Rs.100 crores under protest.
