There is a fundamental fallacy in invoking the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act to the application of section 69B of the Income Tax Act, notwithstanding that both the Acts are cognate and have even been said to constitute an integrated scheme of taxation. Under the Income Tax Act, we are to find what was the real and actual consideration paid by the assessee and whether the full consideration has been recorded in the books.
Under Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, to give to the amalgamated company the benefit of the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation of the amalgamating company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, the Central Government must, upon the recommendation of the specified authority, be satisfied that the amalgamating company was not, immediately before the amalgamation, financially viable by reason of its liabilities, losses and other relevant factors, and that the amalgamation was in the public interest.
AAI had let out/given on licence or lease certain premises to the petitioners therein for the purpose of running a counter or for parking and the Service Tax Department, invoking Section 65 (105) (zzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 was claiming service tax on the rental/licence fee which was being paid by the petitioners therein to the AAI. It was the contention of the petitioners therein that Section 65 (105) (zzm) does not entail renting out of immovable property and the same does not constitute a taxable service and is not exigible to service tax. Reliance was placed on clarification issued by Central Board of Custom and Excise vide Circular No.80/10/2004-S.T., dated 17.9.2004.
We are unable to uphold the view of the Tribunal that it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to establish with the help of material on record that the share monies had come or emanated from the assessee’s coffers. Section 68 of the Act casts no such burden upon the Assessing Officer.
a. The search commenced on 29.8.1996 and was finally concluded on 30.8.1996. It is impossible for anybody to accurately take stock in a span of just one day and this itself vitiated the entire process of inventorisation followed by the income tax authorities.
The proviso to s. 36(1)(iii) enacts that any amount of the interest paid towards capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset or for extension of existing business regardless of its capitalization in the books or otherwise,
In the absence of a finding rejecting the accounts of the assessee, the reference to the DVO could not have been made by the Assessing Officer in the first place. It is evident that the valuation in the instant case was uncritically accepted by the Assessing Officer. As can be seen from a comparison of the valuation by the assessee, with that of the DVO, the variation is 3.86 per cent. This is a very minor variation, having regard to the large amounts involved.
There may be cases where the Assessing Officer does not and may not raise any written query but still the Assessing Officer in the first round/ original proceedings may have examined the subject matter, claim etc, because the aspect or question may be too apparent and obvious. To hold that the assessing officer in the first round did not examine the question or subject matter and form an opinion, would be contrary and opposed to normal human conduct. Such cases have to be examined individually.
Service tax on Legal Services provided by advocate (whether individual or firm) to any business entity has been imposed vide the Finance Act, 2012 under reverse charge mechanism wherein service recipient is liable to deposit service tax on fees paid to advocates.
Power to rectify an order, under Section 254 (2) is extremely limited. It does not extend to correcting errors of law, or re-appreciating factual findings. Those, properly fall within appellate review of an order of court of first instance. What legitimately falls for consideration are errors (mistakes) apparent from the record.
