The identical questions of law came up for consideration before this Court in the case of CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244. This Court held that the transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity.
It is not in dispute that the assessees used the inputs and have exported the impugned goods and the refund is only in respect of input credit attributable to the inputs utilized in the exported goods. It is not necessary to prove one-to-one correlation of inputs with that of exported goods. The assessees were not in a position to utilize the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods which were exported under bond and which were getting accumulated from time to time. In those circumstances, when once the appellate authority correctly applied Rule 5 and granted the refund.
Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Cenvat credit – Distribution of credit on inputs by office or any other premises of output service provider – Assessee paid service tax pertaining to advertisement of its product manufactured in a unit – It availed Cenvat credit of service tax so paid in another unit – Revenue denied said credit on ground that assessee was entitled to take credit only in unit where product was manufactured –
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
Richter Holding Ltd v. ADIT – The Vodafone controversy continues – To determine taxability of acquisition of shares of a non-resident company holding majority shares in an Indian company by another non-resident, it may be necessary for the fact finding authority to lift the corporate veil to look into the real nature of transaction to ascertain virtual facts.
In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under section 37.
Petitioner was an employee in the 1st respondent – Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31.3.2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/-. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,331/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.
M/s Varun Developers Vs CIT, Bangalore (Karnataka High Court)- In view of the submission made to consider whether the calculations have to be made on completion of the project after registering the plots in favour of the intended purchasers or customers, who had invested the amount from time to time, or as and when the amount is paid and accrued to the benefit of the petitioner for each assessment years and, also to consider the deductions available as per Section. 801B(10) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer by quashing the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Revisional Authority. All the contentions are left open to be urged, Petitions are accordingly allowed.
CIT Vs M/s Sami Labs Limited – Karnatka High Court (Dated: February 14, 2011)- Income tax – Section 115JAA, 263, 244A – Whether MAT credit is to be first adjusted and then TDS and pre paid taxed should be set off against the total tax liability – Whether assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244A against the MAT credit. – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
It is to be noted here that the claim made by the assessee under section 158-A will not however preclude the Assessing Officer from making an order disposing of the relevant case without awaiting the final decision on the question of law in other case. When the decision on the question of law becomes final, it shall be applied to the relevant case and the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority shall amend the order earlier passed, if necessary in view of the final decision on the question of law in the other case.
