8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. A great deal of emphasis had been laid by he Id. DR on the fact that since the addition has been upheld by the tribunal, then the penalty should also be confirmed. In our considered opinion the mere fact of confirmation of addition cannot per se lead to the confirmation of the penalty
9. From the rival positions of both the parties as well as the provisions of section 41(1) and the legal propositions of various judicial fora, the following issues have emerged. They are: (a) the issue of limitation of period of three years; (b) the issue of discharge of onus, when the assessee has not unilaterally written them off; (c) the issue of unilateral write off for the assessments of the post amendment period i.e. 1.4.1997
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
Service tax credit cannot be taken when service tax has not been shown to have been paid by service provider; once it is found that Cenvat credit was irregularly availed by the assessee and by implication to that extent the service tax on the output service was short paid, it has to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
No appeal lies against the order rejecting an application for renewal of CHA Licence. In absence of any other remedy it is open to this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in case where an application for renewal is rejected.
. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence to various parties in the field on the basis of geographical specifications.
25. There is no dispute or dis-agreement regarding the nature of transactions entered into between the assessee and its distributors. The assessee company, by virtue of the licence issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, is engaged in providing Mobile telephone services to the public at large. The Govt, of India s allotting the licence
CIT Vs. M/s K.G. Denim Ltd. (Madras HC) – The Assessing Officer is not entitled to touch the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act, while arriving at the book profit under Section 115J and the book profit so arrived at should be the basis for taxation and therefore, the computation under Section 80HHC should be limited to the case of profits of eligible category only. The Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that in view of the non obstante clause available in Section 115JA it was clear that the provisions is a self-contained one and no other provision would have effect on it and thereby it was to be implemented as contained in the said provision.
Assessee-company under the tripartite agreement, in particular, clause 4.1 was under no obligation whatsoever to contribute any money to its wholly owned subsidiary YRMPL. The facts as found also show that whatever was spent by the assessee-company by way of advertisements towards liability to advertisers such as O&M and HTA etc. was allowed. Furthermore, the facts also reveal that the total contributions received during the period by YRMPL was Rs 2.64 crores out of which it had admittedly spent Rs 2.19 crores and the balance Rs 44.44 lacs remained unspent. The point to be noted is that what the assessee-company in law could not have claimed directly, that is, by making a provision for advertising expenditure could it then be allowed to claim an amount as an expense merely on account of the fact that it had set up an intermediary in the form of a wholly owned subsidiary
