Relying on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal we exclude the Giant Companies namely Wipro and Infosys which are taken as comparables as turnovers of these companies are multiple number of times higher compared to that of the assessee, we hold that the DRO erred in considering their PLI to arrive at the arithmetic mean.
The Airlines Industry represented to the authorities that they were receiving payments in Indian currency and the new amendment would cause hardship to the exporters and to them. Consequently the exemption under Notification 29/2005-S.T., dated 15-7-2005 was issued restoring exemption to such services from Service Tax as was available in Notification No. 28/2004-S.T., dated 17-9-2004. The additional ground taken in the application for that purpose is that notification 29/2005-S.T., dated 15-7-2005 is only in nature of a clarification and hence it should apply retrospectively.
The Department appears to have sent a proposal to the Finance Department which had approved it on 4th September 2012 and after the same was received back alongwith necessary papers and orders permitting the Office of the Government Pleader to file Tax Appeal, it appears that the Tax Appeal which was to be filed on or before 10th November 2009, came to be filed after a huge delay of 1226 days on 27th November 2012. What is stated for explaining such delay is that due to Government administrative mechanism, within the statutory time period, tax appeal could not be filed. In absence of any specific details and explanation, this explanation in general terms does not satisfy us.
In this case the assessee’s contention for interest under section 244A was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that according to section 244A(2), if the proceedings resulting in refund are delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay so attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable. The Assessing Officer held that from the records it is seen that the above condition was directly applicable to the assessee’s case. He observed that the assessee-company was not able to produce the original documents and these were procured by the assessee-company much later to assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that no interest under section 244A was to be granted.
The AO has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had vide a letter dated 4/3/2002 voluntarily offered for taxation by disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,54,260/-. In view of the said voluntary offer, the impugned amount was added back to the income of the assessee. When the matter was carried before the first appellate authority, it was held that the impugned amount was offered for taxation and it was not a case of mistaken impression of law, therefore, in the absence of any other material, the action of the AO was upheld.
In this case, assessee was given ESOP by Gillette Co. In his submissions and ESOP plan it has been observed that these ESOPs are cashless. Assessee has to pay nothing on exercise of ESOP. The assessee has been granted ESOP in earlier years without any cost. On the date of exercise the amount under ESOP to the assessee was deducted from the sale proceeds and the difference amount between sale proceed and exercise price amounting to Rs. 1,07,35,727 (less transfer expenses) has directly been credited on 7th March, 2006 in assessee’s bank account.
The safeguard built in section 50C does envisage a situation that whenever assessee claims that the fair market value of the property is less than the stamp duty valuation of the property, a reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer and all these issues relating to valuation of the property – either on the issue of allowing a reasonable margin for market variations, or on the issue of making adjustments for agreements having been entered long ago, can be taken up, before the Departmental Valuation Officer and, therefore, subsequent appellate forums as well.
The assessee has made payment for commission and has been rendered services in consideration of the same. As a matter of fact, it is not even revenue’s case that no services have been rendered at all.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund in all Rs.25 Lakhs seized from the petitioners on 17th of October, 2006 along with interest at the prevalent rate as provided for under section 132 B(4) for the period 16.12.2007 to 31.12.2008 and simple interest under section 244A on the said amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from 1st of January, 2009 to the date of actual payment at the rate of 18 per cent per annum within a period of two months, failing which they shall also be liable to pay the interest on interest amount @ 6 % per annum, as indicated above.
The petitioner prays that the notification should be quashed in so far as it seeks to subject the activities of a business chit fund companies to service tax to the extent of 70% of the consideration received for the services. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no question of exempting a part of the consideration received for the services in chit fund business when the law provides that such services are not taxable at all in the first place.
