The award under the Motor Vehicle Act is like a decree of the court. It do not come within the definition of income as mentioned in Section 194A(1) read with Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding claim under Motor Vehicle Act are in the nature of a garnishee proceedings under which the MACT has a right to attach the judgment debt payable by the insurance company.
It is no doubt true that the decisions in HMT (Supra), Sun Pharmaceuticals (supra) and Gemini Arts (supra) dealt with fact situations where the assessee had obtained long lease, and where the Court found the down payment as lumpsum premium to be a real advance rental payment which therefore qualify as revenue expenditure. At the same time, this Court is also aware of the fact that in Madras Auto services (supra), the leased land contained a dilapidated structure, and since it could not be used by the assessee,
The services/activities in question are pest control, annual maintenance contract (AMC) for ST plant for sewage disposal, AMC for air conditioners for instrumentation room, canteen facility and AMC for computers. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following decisions in support of their claim of CENVAT credit on the aforesaid services:
Section 54EC grants relief to those assessees, who transfer a long term capital asset resulting in capital gains by making investment in various bonds with in within a period of six months from the date of transfer. The Legislature intent in enacting the provision is to provide benefits to those assessees who park their consideration received in REC bonds or those issued by the National Highway Authority of India.
Assessee had received a gift of Rs. 22,76,750/-in U.S. dollars from an NRI, N.Mohan and the assessee had filed two confirmation letters, one in December 2006 and another on 10-07-2007 given by the donor stating that he had gifted the above amount to the assessee, that the assessee is his close relative, that he is a man of means owning a software company of a net worth of US $ 25 million, that he had gifted during the year 2002-03 Rs. 2.00 crores to rebuild a government school,
Penalty has been imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has reversed the CENVAT Credit which has been pointed out as erroneously taken in August and September 2008 itself.
The issue is whether giving bullock-carts on consideration amounts to supply of tangible goods service. As per the definition of tangible goods service it includes machinery, equipment and appliances. Bullock-carts prima facie cannot be considered as machinery, equipment or appliances. In view of this, the applicants have made out a case for total waiver for hearing of the appeal.
Even though the privity of contract may be between the assessee (whose obligation it is for the transportation of goods) and the transporter, rather, irrespective of whether the contract is between the assessee and the transporter or the principal and the transporter – the payment in either case being only in pursuance to a contract; the liability under section 194C being on the person responsible for making the payment
CA Hiral Raja Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act states that the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide the appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed.
Subsequent reversal of a transaction among group entities isn’t colourable device, if effect carried in ledgers (a) Assessee is a charitable institution, there is no change in it’s objects. It carried on educational institutions and intended to further its objects by opening new schools and a university. (b) APIL owned reserved educational plots and it’s agreements to sale of such reserved plots with group educational trust do not carry any element of primary suspicion.
