19. One of the things which is clearly discernable from the facts of this case is that so far as the year before us is concerned, which was incidentally first full year of assessee’s operations, the import content of the raw materials was as high at 98.95%. This is materially different from the import content of the raw material in the cases of the comparables selected by the revenue authorities.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
In Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case (supra), Their Lordships have held that that penalty under section 271(1)(c) provides remedy for loss of revenue. A penalty under section 271 (1)(c) involves payment of an additional amount, which is a civil liability to provide for remedy for loss of revenue, while a sentence of imprisonment under section 276 C means loss of individual liberty which does not help revenue in anyway except as serving as a deterrent for the potential defaulters.
7. There was a search and seizure action against the assessee on 10-10-1995. In pursuance thereto, the A.0 initiated proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act. Notice u/s 158BC read with section 158BD dated 10-9-1996 was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare and file the return of income in the prescribed form setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period from 1-4-1985 to 10-10-1995
14. The assessee has also taken a plea that the assessee did not deduct the tax at source on the interest liability credited to L T Ltd. as per the legal advice given by M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co. This explanation of the assessee has been rejected by the C1T(A) by saying that this submission of the assessee that no TDS was deducted by the assessee under a legal advice of M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co., lacks merit because this advice is
Where the assessee was an Indian company and more than 51% of its equity share capital was held by a German company (Daimler Benz AG) and pursuant to an offshore merger the said shares came to be held by another German company (DaimlerChrysler AG) and there being a change of more than 51% of the beneficial interest in the shares, the question arose whether section 79 of the Act (pre- amendment)
11. The powers of the Tribunal emanates from the provision of section 254 of the Act and not from any other provisions. The provisions of section 132 of the Act considered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court only specifies the circumstances under which search warrant can be issued by the competent authority. Such provisions have nothing to do with the powers of the Tribunal
In the present case, admittedly, no incriminating material was found relating to the alleged unaccounted sales of jewellery by the assessee to M/s. Ranka Jewelers in the course of search carried out at the premises of the assessee. The material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found during the search at the premises of the third party namely Prakash Salunkhe. Therefore, the question of existence of such nexus as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph simply does not arise. Consequently, no addition could be made solely on the basis of material found from the position of the third party.
Service charges (assessee’s appeal) (i) whether the services rendered benefited group companies. (ii) whether the expenses were incurred to take care of the TCCC brand image. (iii) whether rendering services to the bottlers could be a ground for making disallowance.
15. In so far as the assessee’s contention that as the remuneration paid to the directors were increased in a properly called meeting of the Board of Directors, such payment is to be considered as reasonable and not excessive, we are of the view that this contention of the assessee would be of no much assistance to the assessee as discussed hereafter. There is no dispute in the fact that the Board of Directors
