It is the oft-repeated submission of the counsel that the COD applications are liable to be allowed on the sole ground of pendency of their writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. No judicial authority has been cited before us in support of the plea. We are of the view that the pendency of the writ petition filed by the appellants who were conscious of the statutory remedy cannot per se constitute a valid ground for condonation of the deliberate delay of over seven years. The appellants have not stated any other valid reason.
As seen from the provisions, the CIT has no jurisdiction over the TPO administratively and therefore, the CIT could not have revised the order under section 92C(3) passed by the TPO.
Very soon, companies in India shall be governed by a new piece of legislation to be known as Companies Act, 2013 which shall replace the longest legislation of the country, the Companies Act, 1956 which is now over 56 years old.
High Court of Bombay had upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra), on the ground that there was no substantial question of law involved. Even before Hon’ble High Court there was no question raised that all delivery based transactions have always to be treated as investment activity. Thus the decision of the Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High court in case of Gopal Purohit (supra), cannot be considered as a precedent for the proposition that all delivery based shares have to be treated as investment activity.
The limitation period prescribed under section 11B for filing the refund claim is one year from the relevant date. The term relevant date in the case where the duty becomes refundable as the consequences of judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate authority, appellate Tribunal or any Court has been defined in Explanation (B)(ec) of section 11B as the date of such judgment, decree or direction.
Learned DR contended that for providing the said services, managerial skill was also required and even the knowledge of local law was also used by the concerned service provider. In our opinion, merely because some managerial skill is required to render the services, it would not make the services to be managerial services as envisaged in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii).
There is no satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating proceedings under section 153C. Inspite of giving sufficiently adequate time to the Revenue for production of the necessary records and considering the fact that AO refused to allow inspection to assessee as recorded by the bench on 20.04.2011, we have no option than to take an adverse view that no satisfaction was recorded by AO before issuance of notice under section 1 53C.
An assessee’s duty to establish that the amounts which the AO proposes to add back, under Section 68 are properly sourced, does not cease by merely furnishing the names, addresses and PAN particulars, or relying on entries in a Registrar of Companies website.
In the present case, the main business of the petitioner is manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products and the vehicles are used by it in the course of business (as written by Respondent No.-2 in the impugned order (Annexure A-1)). This may lead to the inference that proceeds from the sales of such vehicles should have been included in the turnover and must be taxed accordingly.
In the facts of the present case also, it may be that if the Assessing Officer had made some efforts and examined the record of the previous assessment year, he may have come to know that this was a search and could have taken consequent action thereon. However, that by itself would not absolve the petitioner from the duty to disclose all primary facts before the Assessing Officer.
