Normally, transportation is after or post manufacture. The onus was on the assessee to show and establish that, because of the peculiarity of facts, transportation charges should be treated as sale proceeds or part of sale proceeds of the goods manufactured and were intrinsically connected and had live link with the manufacturing activity. In the absence of aforesaid evidence and material placed by the assessee, the transportation charges cannot be treated as profit and gain derived from the manufacturing activity, which qualifies for deduction under section 80-I.
We do not think we would be justified in preventing the Assessing Officer from collecting evidence which may be used by him for the purpose of bringing what in his opinion is the proper amount of capital gains on the sale of Okhla land. As to how he proposes to use the evidence against the assessee is a matter of speculation which we refrain from indulging in.
In the said assessment year, the assessee had earned premium of Rs.12,26,140/- on sale of export quota. The Assessing Officer held that this premium is covered by Section 28 (iiia/b/c) and accordingly computed deduction under Section 80HHC but without giving benefit of provisos under sub Section (3) to Section 80HHC. He observed that the export turnover in the previous year was exceeding Rs.10 crores and the assessee had not complied with the several conditions mentioned in the provisos. The sale proceeds received from sale of quota rights were excluded from benefit under the provisos to Section 80HHC(3) as this was not the regular business income of the assessee.
The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission deserves to be upheld as the assessee, it is apparent, is caught in its own web, which it stoutly and strongly deny. Even now in the writ petition they have urged and argued that their conduct and actions were bona fide and solely guided by the noble and honourable desire to come clean with their inglorious past. The assessee claims that they without any motive or intention to help a third person, declared undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 1,36,08,897. It is being recorded that the undisclosed income has been partly accepted and immunity from penalty and prosecution stands granted, but the ‘wrong’ is checkmated and corrected by the Settlement Commission.
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 to successor of business on account of omission and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for determining the income chargeable to tax for these assessment years is valid?
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [122 (2005) DLT 612], albeit, in context of reduction of share capital. In that case also, the scheme of the reduction was such that many shareholders like the applicants in the instant case were deprivation of their shareholdings on payment of certain price. The Court took note of the general rule that it was the prescribed majority of the shareholders which is entitled to decide whether there should be a reduction in capital or not. After taking note of various judgments
Issue -Whether the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse? In CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court held that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of fact, because it is difficult to predicate to what extent, the extraneous and irrelevant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact.
there is no liability to pay excise duty on the used capital goods, as a consequence the goods are not liable to be confiscated. They are, therefore, liable to be released without payment of any redemption fine. Moreover, there is also no question of the appellant paying any penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The capital goods if still under seizure are directed to be returned to the appellant without payment of any redemption fine. The question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
The impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 could not have been issued under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. However, even if it is assumed that the impugned show cause notice was issued in exercise of the powers of revision under Section 74A of the DVAT Act, the period of limitation would be that which was in vogue when the said notice was issued. The period of limitation that would apply would, therefore, be the one prescribed under Section 74A(2)(b) of the DVAT Act. And, that being the case, as we have mentioned above, the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 is barred by time.
If there is a foreign travel in connection with the business, merely because in the said foreign travel, no business could be transacted or the foreign travel did not result in bagging any contract is not the determinative factor. The relevant factor was as to whether he was sent by the assessee abroad in connection with the business of the assessee.
