8.5 The crucial question to be asked and answered is whether the applicant has paid any fee to HMFICL for the service of deputing its own employee having technical knowledge to work with the applicant for a specified period? Whether the part reimbursement of salary of secondee by the applicant shall be construed as consideration for rendering the service of the kind covered by FTS clause
14. The assessee has also taken a plea that the assessee did not deduct the tax at source on the interest liability credited to L T Ltd. as per the legal advice given by M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co. This explanation of the assessee has been rejected by the C1T(A) by saying that this submission of the assessee that no TDS was deducted by the assessee under a legal advice of M/s. C.C. Chokshi Co., lacks merit because this advice is
16. On the issue of applicability of section 28(iv) of the Act, we are however of the view that the same arises for consideration on the grounds raised in cross objection and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the same. We are of the view that provisions of section 28(iv) would not be attracted to a case of increase in capital of partners of a firm pursuant to revaluation of the assets of the firm. Under section 28 of the Act
With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to prove that retraction of confession made by him was because of threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the court as such.
Where the assessee-employer allowed the employees the benefit of deduction under section 10 (5) of the Act without collecting evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amounts paid towards Leave Travel Concessions/Conveyance Allowance and the question arose whether the employer could be said to have wrongly allowed the deduction, HELD:
A transaction in intellectual property (IP) along with the right to manufacture the licensed product is totally different from the technical assistance rendered by an engineer or a firm of engineers; when IP services are brought under the tax net without altering the scope of “Consulting Engineer Service” the new impost covers an activity hitherto not exigible to service tax under the head Consulting Engineer.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that a similar issue was involved in assessee’s own case for the earlier years i.e. AY 1991-92, 92-93 & 93-94 and the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 12.6.1998 has decided the same in favour of the assessee for the said years following the decision of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of P.A.V.L. Kulandayan Chettiar
Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds that the amount expended on making such investments or in acquiring such bullion, jewellery or other valuable article exceeds the amount recorded
3. We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We find that evidence exists on record that M/s Ronex International was habitually importing materials from Kaks. It is also a fact that this concern placed an order with the assessee for import of brass and plastic zippers as seen from pages 35 and 36 of the paper book. The Kaks was earlier carrying on the business of export of zippers,
10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The authorities below have not controverted the claim of the assessee company that the amount received from above three companies is inter-corporate deposits. The Assessing Officer held against the assessee only on account that it had failed to explain, the investment is neither loan or advance.
