For the assessment year 2006- 07, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23rd March, 2009 had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,70,000/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). This penalty was levied on account of Rs. 21,97,500/- received in cash by the respondent- assessee from Pradeep Aggarwal and Kaveri Aggarwal. The Assessing Officer, in this connection, has referred to the assessment order in the quantum proceedings wherein the nature and character of the aforesaid deposit/ transaction has been discussed in detail and the terms loan and deposit were examined. The Assessing Officer has recorded that the authorized share capital of the respondent assessee company was Rs. 1,00,000/- only.
CA certifying in Form 10CCAC that export proceeds have been realised when not in fact realized amounts to false and bogus certificate and is serious misconduct for which mere reprimand is not sufficient punishment. The attempt was to dupe tax authorities and help assessee to avoid tax, to that extent, such a conduct has to be taken seriously and respondent cannot be let off merely by giving him reprimand; some penalty needs to be imposed so that it acts as deterrent and such professional misconduct are not committed.
The profession of law has always been known as a noble profession. It is not an empty rhetoric. Success in the profession is measured not by the fortune made but on the threshold of learning. Advocates are known as the officers of the Court. They are expected to possess not only intellectual purity but owe a responsibility to the Court to present the case dispassionately in an upright dignified ethical manner and to display fairness also to their colleagues and in all their dealings. The duty of a lawyer is to assist the Court in the administration of justice and an advocate must not indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image of the profession in the Society.
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
Jiyuan Li Vs Registrar Of Companies (Delhi HC) Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with.
Hon’ble High Court held that provisions of Section 80-HHC required two conditions to be satisfied before an assessee could claim deduction there under. The two conditions being:- (i) the goods being export out of India and (ii) Sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable in convertible foreign exchange. The above conditions are satisfied cumulatively. Here sale made to UNICEF in India would not amount to export of goods. Accordingly the assessee is not entitled to deduction U/s 80-HHC of the Act.
The petitioner assessee had filed an appeal against the reassessment order as it was mandated and required to be filed within the period of limitation. They have, however, withdrawn the said appeal. Looking into the factual background of the present case, we feel that the plea of alternative remedy raised by the Revenue should be and ought to be rejected. Defence of alternative remedy in the present case will result in miscarriage of justice and cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported under the open general license.
In the first three minutes, reward has been awarded @ 19.4% that is nearly the maximum possible rate. The said reward was on the principal amount of customs duty of Rs.1.21 crores and, therefore, the Reward Committee was competent to award a lower amount/percentage on the penalty and fine amount but this is not the reason and ground given in the last two minutes of the Reward Committee.
Petitioner had filed the application for registration on 23rd September, 2006 after the 2002, Scheme had come to an end, as the scheme was applicable only upto 31 st March, 2006. The industrial park set up by them was not operational/functional by 31st March, 2006. It became operational on a subsequent date. The completion certificate for the said park issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation is dated 29th August, 2007. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim notification under the 2002, Scheme.
