CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)- Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no challenge to the finding that certificate issued to the assessee under Section 195(2) was never cancelled and in absence thereof, the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default. In view of the said unchallenged finding, the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained. Once it is so, we are of the view that the questions referred need not be gone into.
Recently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the High Court) in the case of CIT v. Rockman Cycle Industries Private Limited [201 1-TIOL-88-HC-P&H-IT-LB] held that if the taxpayers used certain devices to conceal true nature of the transaction, it was the duty of the taxing authority to unravel the device and determine its true character.
Mayfair Resorts Vs. CCEC, Ludhiana – The assessee is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category ‘Mandap Keeper’. During audit for the period of 2004-05, it was noticed by the Department that the assessee surrendered Rs.35 lacs to the Income Tax Department as additional taxable income on the said amount being found cash at the premises of the assessee and the assessee being unable to explain the source of income. According to the department, since only business of the assessee was providing service of ‘Mandap Keeper’, the amount represented proceeds of services provided by the assessee. Accordingly, amount was treated as subject to service tax vide order-in-original dated 28.1.2009. On appeal, the said order was set aside on the ground that without making any enquiry and in absence of any statutory presumption, the department could not treat the amount as representing proceeds of services provided by the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal to this effect in Kipps Education Centre Bathinda Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2009(13) STR 422 was followed. The said order has been affirmed by the Tribunal.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Versus M/s Mukta Metal Works – Whether the Tribunal is right in holding at page 68 of the order that the office note dated 21.05.2001 which was appended to 158BC order dated 21.5.2001 and is part of the said order, does not constitute a satisfaction note within the parameter of Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the person who has borrowed money through the assessee broker who is the searched person for the purpose of order U/s 158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Commissioner Of Central Excise (CCE) vs M/S Patran Pipes (P) Ltd. – There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner and the Tribunal that there was nothing to show that the amount of cash seized represented clandestine sale of excisable goods.
Tribunal has exercised the powers under Section 80 of the Act and therefore setting aside the penalty under Section 76 by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held to be unreasonable. Further, the respondent has admittedly paid 25% of the penalty within one month from the date of the order of the original authority. Therefore, the waiver of penalty in excess of 25% of the Service Tax evaded under Section 78 is also justified and, therefore, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference.
Metalman Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Ludhiana(High Court of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh) – Whether ITAT is justified in law in allowing deduction u/s 80IB on labour job receipts ignoring the fact that such income is not ‘derived from’ the eligible business of industrial undertaking of the assessee company? – Whether ITAT is justified in law in allowing deduction u/s 80IB on other miscellaneous income being misc. receipts, rebate & discount and balances written off etc. whereas such income is not ‘derived from’ the eligible business of industrial undertaking of the assessee company?
The Assessee borrowed money from a sister concern at 18 per cent interest and purchased shares from another sister concern carrying a dividend at 4 per cent. The Revenue thought the device was colourable and disallowed the interest. Investment in sha
Section 76 provides for penalty for failure to pay the amount while Section 78 provides for penalty for suppressing the taxable value. Section 78 is, thus, more comprehensive and provides for higher amount. Even if technically, the scope of sections 76 and 78 is different, penalty under Section 76 may not be justified if penalty had already been imposed under Section 78; the appellate authority was within its jurisdiction not to levy penalty under section 76 of the Act having regard to the fact that penalty equal to service tax had already been imposed under section 78 of the Act.
Where in case of assessee there was only processing of return under section 143(1)(a) and, there was no finding in order of AO with regard to applicability of section 269T to assessee’s case, no penalty under section 271E was permissible.
