whether a charitable trust is entitled to depreciation under section 32 of the Act in respect of assets owned by it, was dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society [1989] 180 ITR 579 by placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne [1984] 146 ITR 28 and has held that depreciation is nothing but decrease in value of property through wear, deterioration or obsolescence and allowance is made for this purpose in book keeping, accountancy, etc.
For furnishing information required, the petitioner had sought 5 adjournments, as finds place in the impugned order but such information was not furnished. On 8.3.2001, again an adjournment was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the staff was busy in the examination work so time be allowed for furnishing the information. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that such information was required to be furnished by the petitioner, as the staff of the petitioner was busy in the examination work, petitioner institution had sought such time, but it was denied.
ITAT has committed an error in dismissing the appellant’s appeal merely by observing that while deciding the appeal of revenue the stand of the CIT (Appeal) has been upheld. We find that the appellant’s contention that the net profit at 2.5% could not have been applied by CIT (Appeal) was required to be decided by the ITAT and the appellant’s appeal could not have been dismissed summarily on the basis of the decision in revenue’s appeal without dealing with the appellant’s contention. It is evident from the order of ITAT that while deciding revenue’s appeal also the said question of applying of net profit rate at 2.5% was not dealt with by it.
It has also been argued that retrospectivity was not permissible because this amendment to the definition of “taxable service” is not merely clarificatory but brings about a substantive liability of taxation upon the service providers. It has also been contended that by giving a retrospective effect to this amendment to the definition of taxable service, the service provider is also saddled with liability to pay interest as well as penalty on the default in payment of service tax for the past period.
Facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical goods. It is having its one unit at Mandideep, District Raisen and another at Parwanoo, District Sonal (H.P.). The appellant’s unit at Mandideep is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in the distribution/transmission of power, while its Parwanoo unit is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in generation of the power.
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that after the assessment order is passed, the assessee is entitled not only for the refund but also simple interest on the amount as has been provided under sub-section 4(a) and (b) of the Act. Sub-section 4(b) provides that such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 was executed to the date of completion of the assessment.
The statutory provision of section 92CA does provide for an approval by the Commissioner and the original record produced before this Court establishes that there was an approval by the Commissioner in the matter of reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. In the instant case, the impugned order has been passed by (Additional Commissioner) an authority who is jurisdictionally competent to pass such an order and it can never be said that the order passed by him without jurisdiction.
Shri Siddharth Chhajlani was a regular employee of the assessee Company since financial year 2003-04 and has taken note of the salary certificate along with the deduction and payment to Employee’s Provident Fund. It has also been noted that Shri Siddharth Chhajlani was sent for higher studies in printing technology, which is the main field of working of the assessee Company and a bond was got executed to ensure that he will work for at least 5 years after return to India.
On the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Range – Ujjain against the impugned order of assessment. The memo of appeal indicates that in the said appeal the petitioner has also questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the parallel remedy before two forums at the same time raising the same issue.
In the instant case, Amish Kumar Patel in his statement under Section 131 of the IT Act has nowhere said that the money in question belonged to the petitioner’s firm or was to be delivered to it. Instead, he has stated that the money in question was handed over to him by Praveen Bhai who was found untraceable at the address provided by Amish Kumar. This being so, the petitioners do not get any advantage of Vindhya Metal Corpn.’s case (supra), being distinguishable on facts.
