The owner of the industry shall issue serially cash/credit memos, for sales of finished goods which will contain name and address of the purchasers, descriptions of the goods sold and its value, exemption certificate number and date, signature of the seller.
Assessing authority has himself extended the benefit to storage tank storing water as a component to main machinery namely, boiler, he ought to have extended the benefit to the storage tanks which are also part of the factory premises, in which the by products are stored and thereafter sold as a finished product.
High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by this Court in the case of CCE v. Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. in CEA No.6/2007 disposed of on 01.09.2010. The said question has to be adjudicated by the Apex Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.
Ultimately the assessing officer was of the opinion that a firm, which had the capacity to lend an amount of Rs. 71,50,000/- that too, to one of its partners or others is reasonably presumed to have the taxable income and if the assessee had never disclosed its expenditure or otherwise earlier and in such circumstances, if the officer records that he has reason to believe that assessee had taxable income and a non-filing of the return is not merely suspicion and therefore in bringing to tax such amount by re-opening.
In a given case if such immunity is not granted the Department would proceed to prosecute the assessee in a jurisdictional court. Once prosecution is lodged the presumption is that there was mens rea on the part of the assessee to conceal the income by a smoke screen or evade tax. Thus the Settlement Commission will have to examine the application by lifting the corporate veil to see as to whether there has been an intention to evade tax and then arrive at a conclusion. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken by the Settlement Commission the intention underlined behind section 245H(1) would become otiose or redundant.
The Tribunal is not authorized to extend stay of demand beyond maximum period of 365 days. The decision of Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days amounted to contravention of provisions of the law.( Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and B. Fouress Private Limited v. CIT (ITA. No. 160&161/2012)]
If the revenue is to reply upon some documents for some part of them to claim that the documents reveal some undisclosed income of the assessee which has escaped tax and is earned during the block period, at the same time not giving same importance to the other parts of the documents, but understanding the other clauses by way of inference or on a logic attributing certain motives to the assessee, it is not a proper way of reading the document, assuming that it is relatable to the search and has a link to the search.
Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.
This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the interim order of stay in particular the order directing the appellant to pay 10% of the demand as security while entertaining the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2010 providing for proportionate credit, the order which is challenged in appeal has been recalled by the authorities and therefore, the appeal itself has become infructuous.
In a writ petition filed by small investors, Karnataka High Court Held that provisions of Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act are contrary to provisions of Section 139A of the Act. Accordingly, provision of Section 206AA were made inapplicable to persons and was read down from the Act only for those persons whose income was less than the taxable limits. However, the High Court made it very clear that the provisions of the Section 206AA are applicable to the persons whose income is more than the taxable limits.
