The respective Assessing Officers, either by themselves or on instructions from the Enforcement Wing officials have stated that there is mismatch of the details, disclosed in the returns compared with the details available with the Department.
Issue- Notification with reference to the Amendment to Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules with reference to increase of Fees vide Gazette Notification in G.S.R.1183(E) dated 29.12.2016 as invalid, illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional. Facts of the case-This batch of Writ Petitions has been filed by various Associations namely Chennai City […]
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 confirming imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act (in short Act) though reducing the quantum from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs.
In our view, Questions No.2 and 3 seeks to raise an issue of law, which, already stands covered against the Revenue. We are, in respectful agreement, with the views taken by the Karnataka and Allahabad High Courts, as articulated in their respective judgments to which reference is made hereinabove.
Fact that a particular expense does result in a profit for the Assessee in the immediate proximity cannot form the basis of its dis allowance. In incurring an expense, a business person could have a short and a long term perspective.
It is held that the receipts in the hands of the employees of the HPF, pursuant to the severance package announced by the Central Government and intimated vide proceedings/circular is held to be a special privilege/protection granted to the employees of the HPF Ltd and therefore, the provisions of the Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted and accordingly, the same shall not fall within the definition of income, while computing the total income of concerned employee and income tax cannot be deducted from the severance package paid to the employees of HPF.
To our mind, in the instant case, what has emerged is that the Assessee, having realised that the expenditure claimed towards travelling under Section 57 of the Act was not tenable, offered the amounts expended to be added to her income and, accordingly, paid the requisite tax and interest upon the same. In our opinion, this was not a case, where, the Assessee could be said to have either concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income.
In this case assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit U/s. 54F of IT Act only on ground that all the 15 flats are not in the same Block, particularly in the light of admitted factual position that all the 15 flats are located at same address.
A bare reading of the sub-section (5) of Section 22 would show that it is only after an assessment is complete under sub-section (4) of Section 22, that penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, it can, either be imposed at the time when, the assessment order is passed, or, by way of a separate order, albeit, after the assessment order is passed. Therefore, the proposal in the show cause notice to levy penalty at the rate of 150% prior to adjudication demonstrates premeditation.
This is an appeal preferred against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.09.2016. 2. By virtue of the said judgement, the learned Single Judge disposed of a batch of writ petitions, which included, the writ petition filed by the appellant, before us.
