Revenue challenged the order passed by ITAT which confirmed the order of CIT (A) that expenditure incurred i.e. payment of royalty for technical knowhow in terms of Technical Collaboration Agreement (TCA Agreement) is an allowable expenditure as no benefit was obtained by the Assessee for the period beyond the relevant assessment years.
Revenue challenged the order passed by ITAT majorly on three grounds. Firstly, on ground of adopting value of property as per the value provided by registered valuer instead of value adopted by AO on the basis of report of DVO.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Iwi Crogenic Vaporization System India held that The non-payment of recovered tax coupled with the fact of non-furnishing of the details in respect of unpaid part in periodical returns clearly establish the intention of assesse to evade the payment of service tax recovered. Therefore, in such a case penalty levied u/s 78 is sustainable in law.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Joy Foam P. Ltd held that the input credit of inputs need not to be reversed even in case the payment of duty has been ordered to be remitted under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. held that completed cannot be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the income escaped from tax is attributable to assessee’s failure to disclose full & true disclosure of the facts.
The CESTAT New Delhi in the case of P&P Overseas held that the realization of export sale proceeds within a definite time-frame is not a pre-condition for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004 .
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of The CIT Vs Bharat Bhushan held that no addition is sustainable where the purchases had been accounted for in the regular books of accounts maintained, duly audited and there is nothing to show that the quantity had been purchased and sold outside the books.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd concluded that the provision for losses in the ordinary course of business can be allowed if the provisions are made on scientific basis. Thus, the provision in respect of breakage losses is allowable as the same have been measured scientifically taking into account the past business experience.
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. DLF Commercial Project Corporation Delhi High Court held that Advance received cannot be treated as income of the assessee and TDS is not deductible on reimbursement of Expenses since it is not an income.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of The CIT vs. M/s H. M. Steels Ltd that on an analysis of section 80IC, it must be held that any industrial undertaking or enterprise would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such an industrial undertaking and not on account of any rebate or incentive made available to it by the Government.
