The Bombay High Court today (17.01.2013) granted ad-interim stay against coercive recovery pursuant to Circular No. 967/01/2013 – CX, Dated 1st January, 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Though the respondent-assessee had purchased flat Nos. 416A and 516A it was only purchase of one residential house. Further, the Tribunal held that two flats were joined together before the respondent assessee became the owner of the two flats. The Certificate from the society also established the fact that two flat Nos. 416A and 516A were joined together and were considered as one residential house.
On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 07/06/2007 held that foreign travel of the officers did not give rise to any benefit of an enduring nature but enabled efficient running of its business and therefore was revenue in nature. Thus the deduction on account of expenses on account of foreign travel was allowed as claimed by the respondent.
It is a undisputed finding of fact that the collected bagasse has been used by the assessee to make briquettes for fuel as that indeed is the business of the assessee. The reliance upon the circular No.772, dated 23-12-1998 by the revenue is misplaced. The aforesaid Circular does not restrict its benefits only to local bodies.
A reading of Regulation 3 of the CLB Regulations makes it clear beyond any doubt that the Chairman of the CLB is empowered by the Board to constitute the Benches of the Board as per the composition of Benches prescribed under Section 10E (4B) of the Act.
Income arising on account of offshore services and offshore supply of equipments would not be taxable. If the assessee is not liable to tax in view of the Article 8 (sic) of DTAA between India and Japan, then, irrespective of the amendment to section 9(1) of the Act, the assessee would not be liable to tax.
Tribunal has on examination of the agreement dated 30-4-2003 entered into between ‘R’ and the assessee concluded that ‘R’ in terms of the agreement had only a right to use the network during the tenure of the 20 year agreement. Further, that the agreement was liable to be terminated at the sole discretion of ‘R’ and, consequently, the amount received as advance for 20-year lease period would have to be returned on such termination for the balance un-utilized period.
In this case, the AO had not only stated that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court as it was rendered earlier, but has taken liberty of criticizing the Tribunal stating that the Tribunal granted depreciation ‘even though the ITAT was aware that such custom duty was not payable by a subsequent notification by the Govt. of India in 1987.’ He ought not to have done so.
Undoubtedly an order of assessment which has been passed for a subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of assessment.
Tribunal in the penalty proceedings has by its order, independent of the findings in quantum proceedings, has reached a conclusion that various incriminating documents found during search established that the appellant’s were manipulating its accounts so as to reduce its profits. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposable and has been rightly imposed by the authorities under the Act.
