The case of the petitioners is that the impugned explanation below sub-section (13) to section 80IA provides for a levy of tax which was hitherto unknown. It is, therefore, urged that the Court should examine the reasonableness of such provision particularly when the same is brought into operation with retrospective effect. Section 80IA(4) provides for deduction under certain circumstances. If such deductions are withdrawn with retrospective effect, surely there would be a case of providing for a levy which was till then not known.
In short, the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs.50 lacs was justified. We do not find any question of law arising. The entire issue rests solely on appreciation of evidence on record. Particularly when the assessee having made such a statement and repeated the same two months later and in the letter retracting the statement never offered any explanation as to the reason why he made a confessional statement two months after the search, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal.
The petitioners required vacant possession of the land to be able to pass on the title and vacant possession. To be able to do so, the petitioners entered into agreements with the tenants. Such documents thus are documents which definitely belong to the petitioners. Simply because on subsequent date, the land was sold, may have a bearing on the title of such land, the same would not in any manner alter the nature of the document concerned.
In the present case, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs under section 140A of the Act. In addition thereto, the assessee had also suffered tax deduction at source to the tune of Rs. 25,533/-. Eventually, the Assessing Officer, assessed the tax liability of the assessee at total of Rs. 15,08,474/-. Thus the assessee had short-paid tax to the tune of Rs. 4,82,941/-. To our mind, however, when we look at the ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (supra), such distinction would not be material. What was held by the Delhi High Court was that charging of interest from an assessee for late filing of return though the tax was already paid, would render the provision penal in nature, which the statute did not provide. If we apply the same ratio in the present case, the only modification we need to adopt is that the assessee must be held to be liable to pay interest under section 234A of the Act on the difference of amount between the tax assessed and the amount which he had paid before the due date to which even the assessee has not raised any serious objection.
In the absence of any material, and as the Court does not find any legal or valid ground to withhold sanction to the proposed Scheme, the same is hereby sanctioned. The prayers made in terms of Paragraph 22(a) of Company Petition No.142 of 2012 and in terms of Paragraph 15(a) of Company Petitions No.143 and 144 of 2012, are hereby granted.
In case of Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62, the Supreme Court in the context of an assessee making provision for estimated expenditure towards warranty observed that provision is a liability which can be measured only by using substantial degree of estimation. Such provision is recognized when an assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events, and it is possible that any outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and further a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation.
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that when on the ground on which the reopening of assessment is based, no additions are made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, he cannot make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.
The CBDT, through its circular, could have brought certain aspects to the notice of the Assessing Officer, insofar as assessment was concerned. It had to be the opinion of the Assessing Officer alone which would prevail. In that view of the matter, the circular of CBDT may be a trigger, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer may himself be satisfied that income chargeable to tax in a given case had escaped assessment.
In the opinion of this court, having regard to the provisions of section 78 of the Act and more particularly the first and the fifth proviso thereto as referred to hereinabove, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of penalties in addition to the service tax and interest. In the light of the above provisions, this court is of the view that impugned order dated 10th January, 2012 passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified to the extent the petitioner has been directed to deposit the entire amount of the penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Act.
Section 65(105)(j) makes services rendered to a client by a C & F Agent in relation to clearing and forwarding agent in any manner a taxable service. Term ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’ is defined under section 65(25) to mean any person who is engaged in providing any service either directly or indirectly connected with clearing and forwarding operation in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent. Thus, though the definition of Clearing and Forwarding Agent is quite wide, essentially what is a taxable service is a service rendered by a Clearing and Forwarding Agent to a client in relation to clearing and forwarding operation.
