The Delhi high court last week held that the clause in a tender document for building contract permitting 5 per cent bid security amount to be forfeited in case of a non-responsive bid is “clearly penal in nature and thus provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act would apply.” It cannot be categorized as a reasonable pre-estimate of damages for a non-responsive bid and thus the bank guarantee for 5 per cent of the bid amount cannot be encashed in such an eventuality. The high court ruled this in the case of IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Ltd vs National Highway Authority of India. The “request for proposal” submitted by the firm for a road project in Tamil Nadu being responsive, the forfeiture was illegal the firm was entitled to refund of the amount from NHAI, the judgment said.
Interocean Shipping (I) (P.) Ltd. Versus Union of India (Delhi High Court) Dated: 03-03-2011 – Service Tax – Ship broking and other activities – Section 65(105)(zzb)read with 65(19) – Business Auxiliary Services – The said services became taxable by the Finance Act, 2003, whereby sub-section (zzb) to section 65(105) was enacted – The said clause has to be read with section 65(19). The assessment order shows that the primary and core issue raised was is with regard the actual nature and character of the activity undertaken by the petitioners.
The proviso to Section 14A only bars reassessment/rectification and not original assessment on the basis of the retrospective amendment. The proviso does not stipulate and state that Section 14A of the Act cannot be relied upon during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, required to disallow expenses incurred for earning exempt or tax free income.
The onus cast on the assessee stands discharged where the assessee is able to establish the three ingredients of section 68 i.e., (a) the identity of the creditor, (b) the genuineness of the transaction, and (c) creditworthiness of the creditor.
In case the TPO/AO proposes to make adjustments to the income of the assessee by revising the arm’s length price computed by him, he needs to give a notice to the assessee, conveying the grounds on which the adjustment is proposed to be made, followed by an opportunity to reply to that notice and produce evidence to controvert the grounds, on which the adjustment is proposed.
If the rate of gross profit declared by the assessee in a particular period is lower as compared to the gross profit declared by him in the preceding year, that may alert the Assessing Officer and serve as a warning to him, to look into the accounts more carefully and to look for some material which could lead to the conclusion that the accounts maintained by the assessee were not correct.
If the remuneration demanded by the person proposed to be appointed as Special Auditor is not acceptable to the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, he may not assign the work to him; but, it would be difficult to accept that the special audit can be assigned to a person without fixing either the remuneration or the norms on which the remuneration is to be calculated after the work is completed and conveying the same to him.
If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The decision of the High Court would bring some relief to NBFCs. However, given the fact that this is a debatable issue and unless affirmed by the SC, the tax authorities may continue to dispute the issue. This debate arises primarily due to the fact that under the Act, there is a specific provisions under Section 43D of the Income tax Act, 1961 dealing with interest on NPA with respect to specified financial institutions (including banks) which does not include NBFCs.
Brief:- The DRP, being an authority created under a statute and conferred with the powers, has the obligation to act as a body living to the expectations which the law mandates. The DRP has to afford adequate opportunity for personal hearing and deal with the issues urged by a speaking order which would reflect cogent reasons. This is apt to say so that no assessee can have any kind of apprehension that the approach to the DRP is perfunctory.
