Court finds that the petitioner has followed the required procedure as contemplated under Sections 100 and 101 of the Act for the proposed reduction of capital. The Court also finds that Article 8 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner-Company permits reduction of capital. It also appears that as there was no outlay of funds, the interest of the creditors is not adversely affected, therefore, the procedure as contemplated under Section 101(2) of the Act is not required to be followed.
The petitioner having already paid up the service tax even before collection in a particular quarter, cannot be asked to pay such tax all over again in the following quarter on the same service on the ground that such tax had to be deposited in the later quarter but was deposited earlier. Any such action would be without authority of law.
In the present case, the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of sub-division of the shares. However, we do not see how the observations made by the Apex Court in the ratio laid down in case of General Insurance Corporation (supra) can be distinguished in view of such difference in facts. In case of sub-division of the shares also, there is no increase in the share capital of the company.
Assessee filed Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Rules at the time of filing revised returns in respect of each of the assessment years under consideration. Thus, evidently, the requirements of section 11(2) of the Act had been complied with before the completion of the assessments. Therefore, while completing the assessments for the assessment years under consideration, the Assessing Officer had the necessary information in respect of the claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act made by the assessee before him.
Only primary fact was that the assessee had earned interest income. We are, however, of the opinion that in the context of the close connection between the petitioner and Aditya Medisales, the fact that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and the interest income received from the sister concern had relevance to the provisions of section 80IA(10) of the Act, primary facts were not on record.
Assessee held a bona fide belief that it was liable to pay customs duty on the drawings and designs imported by it as the same were goods. Under the circumstances, no mala fide intention could be attributed to it in not discharging the service tax liability under the category of Intellectual Property Rights Services.
In the aforesaid view, no illegality is committed by the Tribunal in giving option to the respondent-assessee under the Proviso to section 11AC of the Act. It is held that the benefit of payment of reduced penalty can be availed by the assessee at the appellate stages also and it is not the import of the said provision that such benefit can be availed of only within 30 days from the communication of original order.
Whether the view taken by this Court in case of Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF) (supra) that the instructions of 2011 of the Board providing for revised monetary limits for filing the appeals to the Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court, would apply to all pending cases irrespective of the date of filing of such appeals is correct, particularly, in view of express language used in paragraph 2 of the instructions which provides for revised monetary limits for filing of the appeals and paragraph 11 thereof which provides inter-alia that such instructions will apply to appeals filed on or after 9th February 2011?
The Appellate Tribunal was right in law and facts in holding that the value of silver bars which stood confiscated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 could not be added to the wealth of the assessee despite the fact that the confiscation order was subsequently set aside in appeal and the appeal was pending on the date of valuation.
Section 80-IB(10) as amended by inserting clause (d) with effect from April 1, 2005 should be applied retrospectively is also without any merit, because, firstly, clause (d) is specifically inserted with effect from April 1, 2005
