Admittedly as is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, the stock of gold ornaments valued at Rs. 29,77,726/- was subject matter of block assessment under section 158BC of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the material on record in fact made an addition of Rs. 29,77,726/- as undisclosed income of the petitioner.
Neither section 529 nor section 529A of the Act mandate that to claim priority and preferential payment under section 529A the secured creditors must join winding up and cannot stand outside the winding up and/or it must relinquish its security.
From such exchange of information between the Assessing Officer and the assessee, we need to gather whether the question of taxability of a receipt of Rs. 5,56,000/- from the members by the petitioner was under consideration by the Assessing Officer.
It was envisaged between the assessee and GAIL that gas would be supplied by GAIL to the assessee at the receiving point of the assessee’s factory. For such purpose GAIL would be laying down its pipelines and other equipments and would maintain such paraphernalia
Section 48(1) of the Act provides for mode of computation and deduction while charging capital gain. Clause-I thereof in particular provides for a payment from the value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of capital asset, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. The Tribunal found that looking to the peculiar facts of the case noted above, such expenditure cannot be stated to be incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. We do not find that Tribunal committed any legal error.
As per the Assessing Officer, the petitioner should be treated as an agent of Mr. Ivo Perica. For the salary income that Mr. Ivo Perica received for the work done in India having not paid tax, such tax could be recovered from the petitioner. For some strange reason, however, when the impugned notice was issued, the petitioner was described as an agent of M/s. A Monforts Textilmachinen Gmbh and Co. i.e. the foreign company.
Department is in appeal against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short), dated 6-8-2009 by which appeal of the department came to be dismissed. The issue pertains to filing of general declaration instead of consignment-wise declaration by assessee declaring that cenvat credit is not available.
The penalty was based on certain quantum additions. Such additions came to be deleted by the Commissioner(Appeals). Further appeal by Revenue before the Tribunal was rejected. When the Commissioner was deciding the revision petition of the assessee, what was prevailing was the order of the Tribunal.
On a plain reading of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, it is amply clear that the said provisions would be attracted when loans or deposits in excess or twenty thousand rupees are made or repaid. Thus, a basic precondition for falling within the ambit of the said provisions is the existence of a loan or deposit.
In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claim, therefore, would not fall within section 11B of the Act.
