Honorable high Court in this case on the issue of payment of Commission by United Breweries Ltd. To its Chairman Shri. Vijay Mallya held that though the chairman has stood as guarantor in his personal capacity, the bank has lent money not on personal Guaranty of the Chairman but on the Assets of the Company which are offered as a security to the bank. This personal Guarantee is adopted as a mean to pay remuneration to managing Director for which he was otherwise not entitled too.
Whether the transportation service, provided in the factory of the M/s. Tata Auto Comp. Systems Ltd., to their staff for pick up and drop from their residence to the factory and vice versa, was an input service, in or in relation to manufacture, whether directly or indirectly of the final products within the meaning and comprehension of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?
HC held that When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, notional expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The dividend income was incidental to the business of sale of shares, which remained unsold by the assessee. It cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares had to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be a disallowance u/s 14A.
It is not in dispute that the Central Government has not issued any notification in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b). An agricultural land is not a capital asset; it becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b). Section 2(14)(iii)(a) covers a situation when the subject agricultural land is located within the limits of municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee town committee of cantonment committee and which has a population of not less than 10,000.
It was held that consideration paid by the Indian customers or end users to the assessee – a foreign supplier, for transfer of the right to use the software/computer programme in respect of the copyrights falls within the mischief of ‘royalty’ as defined under sub-clause [v] to Explanation 2 to Clause [vi] of section 9[1] of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee cannot be heard to say that the Tribunal was obliged to inform the petitioner about the dismissal of the order. Assuming that the Tribunal is required to send a copy of the order to the assessee/appellant, the assessee is also obliged to be vigilant about the proceedings initiated by him.
CIT v. Bovis Lend Lease (India) (P.) Ltd. In the instant case, it is the consistent stand of both the assessee and LLAH that the consideration paid under the agreement is by way of reimbursement of actual expanses. Therefore, even when a credit entry was made in the accounts as the assessee was treating it only as a reimbursement of actual expenses, he was under no obligation to deduct tax from the said amount as the said amount did not represent income. When LLAH approached the Assessing Officer and made the aforesaid representation, a certificate under Section 197(1) came to be issued. On the face of the certificate issued under Section 1971(1) being made available to the assesses by LLAH, the assessee could not have deducted tax at source. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a defaulter under law. He is not an assessee in default as understood under Section 201 of the Act.
Considering the fact that the entire claim in the instant application is based on the declaration made in the statement of affairs which was on the basis of the realisable value indicated in Ex. R1 and in that regard, if the view taken by this Court in the case of the Official Liquidator, Bangalore Batteries (P.) Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. N.S. Gopal [2010] 103 SCL 164 (Kar.) is noticed, it would be clear that the proceedings under Section 543 cannot be initiated merely based on the realisable value of the assets indicated.
In this judgment HC held that CBDT’s Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 applies to appeal filed before the issue of instruction also and all appeal pending on the date of instruction before High Court in which tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits of Rs. 10 Lakh for filing appeal by Income Tax Department can be held as non Maintainable. High Court has held as follows:-
The levy of interest is on the actual amount, which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax from the due date. The interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly.
