The doctrine of mutuality bestows a special status to qualify for exemption from tax liability. It is a settled proposition of law that exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation. Asssessee having failed to fulfil the stipulations and to prove the existence of mutuality, the question of extending exemption from tax liability to assesse, that too at the cost of public exchequer, did not arise. Once it was conclusively determined that the assessee company had not operated as a mutual concern, there would be no question of extending exemption from tax liability.
In re Vijay Rule & Ors. (Supreme Court) There is not an iota of remorse or any semblance of apology on behalf of the contemnors. Since they have not argued on sentence, we have to decide the sentence without assistance of the contemnors. In view of the scurrilous and scandalous allegations levelled against the judges […]
Since the activities carried on by the liaison office of the non-resident in India was to only carry on such activity of a ‘preparatory or auxiliary’ character, therefore, the same was not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA and the deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act could have no bearing.
Even though assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases during the assessment proceedings, he filed affidavits and statements of the dealers in penalty proceedings and appellate authority had not only accepted the explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income by assessee thus the quantum addition under section 68 would also have to be deleted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Circular dated 27.03.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India has not been implemented by the banks. Hon’ble Supreme Court directs the Reserve Bank of India to ensure implementation of the Circular dated 27.03.2020 in its letter and spirit.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs UNI Products India Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The core issue in these appeals is as to whether car mats come under chapter-heading 57.03 or not. In the second appeal, the numerical representation of the product, as claimed by the assessee, was different but that difference is not of much […]
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Exide Industries Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court) Before the judgment in Bharat Earth Movers (supra), various tribunals and High Courts across the country were treating the liability in lieu of leave encashment as a contingent liability. This did not go down well with the assessees following the mercantile accounting […]
Understanding the law of recording satisfaction when AO of searched person and other person is the same. Analysis of a recent Supreme Court judgment.
BCH Electric Limited Vs Pradeep Mehra (Supreme Court) In a notable judgment in the field of gratuity law, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will apply only when there are alternative options for the employee under the Act and under the terms of contract with the employee. […]
It was possible for the respondent to raise submissions that arbitration pertaining to each of the agreements be considered and dealt with separately. It was also possible for him to contend that in respect of the agreement where the venue was agreed to be at Kolkata, the arbitration proceedings be conducted accordingly.
