Whether amendment to Section 43B (Section) of Income Tax Act,1961, enacted with effect from 1 April 2004, is retrospectively applicable? This amendment was introduced to rationalize the tax deduction of the employer’s contribution to provident fund, superannuation fund, gratuity fund and such other funds for the welfare of employees (social security contributions).
Despite valiant attempt on the part of learned counsel for the appellant to convince us that in view of some observations in Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. & Ors., 2000(5) SCC 694, the issue raised in the present appeal requires consideration, in our judgment the issue is no more res integra. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vs. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corp. & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 19, explaining the scope of Section 11- AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) which is pari materia to Section 13-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the statutory charge created under Section 11- AAAA of the said Act, the sales tax dues shall have precedence over the mortgage created in favour of the Bank.
The test for determining whether “manufacture” can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity, which is subjected to a process can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in trade as a new and distinct commodity; the word “production”,
M/s. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (“assessee/SMMP Ltd.”), engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery. While on one hand, SMMP Ltd. capitalized the said expenditure in its books of account and in its return of income, on the other, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure on the basis that such expenditure was merely incurred on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system.
Secure Meters Ltd. („the assessee?) is engaged in the business of manufacture of energy meters. The Assessing Officer (AO) inter-alia disallowed expenses on the issue of convertible debentures on the basis that it was capital in nature. This was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal?), however, held that the expenses on issue of debentures was allowable as a revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
Whether the rate prescribed by the Agreement between the assessee(s) and the Federation(s) is a composite charge, as submitted by the assessee(s), or whether the said rate is exclusively for ginning and pressing de hors the godown rent
The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT.
We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from 1st April, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause
As per the letter of the Central Government dated 9-7-1973, all State-controlled Educational Committee(s) /Board(s) have been constituted to implement the Educational policy of the States(s), consequently, they should be treated as Educational Institution within the meaning of section 10(22).
we find that in the declaration(s) even though the assessee had doubts about the excisability of the said item and even though the assessee had sought clarification as far back on 5th September, 1994; they did not mention the word Scrabble in the body of the declaration(s) filed with the Department. They did not mention the details of the game Scrabble. Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act.
