In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claim, therefore, would not fall within section 11B of the Act.
If we consider the facts of the case under consideration, we noticed that the A.O. did not reject the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee by invoking section 145(3) of the Act. The assessee raised the ground before the CIT(A) that reference under section 142A to the D.V.O. is without jurisdiction as the A.O. did not reject the books of account.
The investment with the sister-concerns had no nexus to the assessee’s business activities. They were merely invested for the purpose of earning interest. The assessee has not even established that one of its business activities was to advance loans to third parties and/or to invest its funds and that it was a mere coincidence that over the years, all the advances were made to and the investments were made in their sister-concerns.
Objects of the appellant even after the amendment of the trust deed continue to be charitable. The amendment is a mere power conferred on the Trust or other institution. It has to be shown on facts that any amendment to the objects clause has resulted in the trust or institution becoming non charitable in character.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that unrealised export turnover should be included in the Total Turnover while it is not treated as Export Turnover for purposes of computing the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC ?
The Reserve Bank today asked non- banking financial companies (NBFCs) to replace post-dated cheques issued to them by customers with new standardised cheques with improved security features.
Tribunal has considered the entire evidence and on facts come to the conclusion that the profits earned by Kandla division of the respondent-assessee is not abnormally high due to any arrangement between the respondent-assessee and its German Principal. The Tribunal correctly held that extraordinary profits cannot lead to the conclusion that this is an arrangement between the parties.
After going through the order of CIT(A), We find that CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra). We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
The language used in section 10(23C)(iiiad)speaks about existence of solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit if the annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. However, if the aforesaid chart/income is analysed, we find that a huge abnormal profit has been created/earned by the assessee and the amounts are definitely beyond the prescribed limit.
Inasmuch as the department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be rectified at the department’s end itself.
