ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No. 2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
Depreciation on the capital assets was allowable even when capital expenditure on the acquisition of the corresponding assets had already been allowed as ‘application of income’for the purpose of allowing the exemption under s 11.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the duty has been paid in excess of the amount finally held to be payable, unless the excess duty paid has been refunded, the assessee could claim cenvat credit as the department could not get the duty twice.
CIT Vs Quark Systems India (P) Ltd. (Punjab and Haryana High Court)- The Tribunal, while entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee for the exclusion of a comparable, remanded the matter to the AO allowing an opportunity to the assessee to produce material before the AO for determination of the ALP, and after the remand and consideration of the material produced by the assessee in terms of the order of the Tribunal, an order in favour of the assessee has been passed.
Whether a person who is not actual service provider, but discharges the Service tax liability on the Taxable Services, under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on inputs/inputs services/Capital Goods for payment of GTA Services tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services? Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 6.5.2010 in CEA No.99 of 2008 CCE v. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd . etc . Appeal Dismissed
Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
M/s Jai Ganesh Processors Vs. CCE, C, Chandigarh (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) – Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the assessee would not get benefit of exemption if duty had not been paid on inputs, the assessee held a bonafide view about interpretation of the notification. Thus, it may not be a case of deliberate evasion of duty. While the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the assessee that exemption was applicable, the setting aside of penalty cannot be held to be illegal. Levy of penalty is not automatic merely because an exemption was wrongly availed, even when plea of the assessee is found to be erroneous.
The argument that if income is assessed by estimation on GP rate, no other disallowance can be made is not of universal application. If expenditure which is legally not permissible has been taken into account that can certainly be disallowed even where income is estimated. Though the provisions of block assessment are special, the argument that they are a complete Code and the other provisions cannot apply is not acceptable. Section 40A(3) of the Income tax Act applies to block proceedings
