Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)
11. We have carefully perused the agreement entered into by the assessee company with the Government of Tamil Nadu vide concession agreement dated 22-12-2000. In this agreement Article 1 deals with the definition of project as defined under:- ” Project” – means the project described in Appendix 1 which the concessionaire is required to design,
undisputedly, the assessing officer has not initiated proceedings under S.14S of the Act, to lax the interest income of Rs.25,83,848 earned on margin money. In fact, the assessing officer has initiated the proceedings under S.148 to bring to tax the reimbursement of income-tax from APTRANSCO. However, during the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessing officer also noticed that the assessee has earned interest income of Rs.25,83,848 on margin money kept by it for providing bank guarantee in favour of APTRANSCO, in respect of which it has claimed deduction from the total interest income received during the year under consideration.
NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I- The provisions of Rules 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent of the Cenvat Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory.
What is to be assessed is the income which the Assessing Officer has believed to have escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. One has to see that the issue of notice under section 148 should be on the basis of belief of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.
Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details.
section 80IA of the Act was restructured into two new distinct sections namely, 80IA and 80IB. The amended provisions extended the benefits to certain sectors. Under section 80IA of the Act profits of approved housing projects where development and construction commenced after 1-10-1998 and completed before 31-3-2001 were fully deductible.
The construction services used for construction of workers’ quarters within the factory premises, does not fall within the ambit of input services as defined in rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently Applicant can not avail of the credit of such construction services in terms of rule 3 of the mentioned rules.
In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.
