Section 65(19) of the Act defines business auxiliary service and excludes ‘information technology service’ which is defined in the Explanation to the said section as “any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software, or computerised data processing or system networking, or any other service primarily in relation to operation of computer systems.
The principle is that the assessee has to prove the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the creditor in order to discharge the burden cast on him, that a particular cash credit found in his books is genuine having regard to the nature and the source thereof and, therefore, cannot be added to his income under section 68.
In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the property jointly with her husband. She has invested the money in rural bonds jointly with her husband. It is nobody’s case that her husband contributed any portion of the consideration for acquisition of the property as well as bonds. The source for acquisition of the property and the bonds is the sale consideration. It is not in dispute. Once the sale consideration is utilized for the purpose mentioned under sections 54 and 54EC, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of those provision.
C form is a form for the concessional rate of CST on the inter-state sale of goods and is issued by purchasing dealer in one State to the selling dealer in another State for the inter-state sales transactions done during the period of three months i.e a quarter.
Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights’ violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, the High Court should not have passed the said order of suspension of sentence in a case involving corruption.
Corrupt public servant deserves no sympathy and ruling out any leniency towards public servant who has been found guilty by the trial court, also made it clear that each of the criminal case is required to be decided with reference to the individual facts of each case.
Even though the assessment order mentions date of receipt of profit on sale of shares as 4.2.2004 and the amount is claimed to have been received from the company M/s DN Kansal & Securities (P) Ltd., the AO or the ld. CIT(A) did not analyse the nature of transaction as to how it is loan or advance nor ascertained accumulated profits of the said company until the date of transaction.
Ld. A.R has not been able to point out any provisions to the effect that Cenvat credit cannot be taken on machine procured prior to the date of issue of registration certificate. The argument of the lower authorities seems to be that the credit entries in the register for taking credit should not have been earlier than the date of granting of registration.
The AO examined the details of legal and professional charges paid by the company and noticed that the claim of Rs.5 lacs paid to M/s Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd towards placement fees and earned dividend income which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The company did not make any disallowance for the purposes of section 14A of the Act.
Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that insofar as the second reason is concerned, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings with a view to ‘examine’ whether the assessee had accumulated reserve. Obviously, the scope of section 147 cannot encompass such an action under which certain examination is to be conducted for forming a reason to believe as to the escapement of income.
