Mr. Vimal Gupta, Advocate for appellant revenue contends that the amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs being the difference between Rs. 80.00 lacs shown in the seized document and Rs. 71.35 lacs shown in the document evidencing to purchase of Candy House property represents unexplained cash paid by the respondent for purchase of the Candy House and has to be added as her undisclosed income. It is his submission that it was for the respondent to discharge the onus on her to explain the noting found during the search of the premises which indicated Rs. 80.00 lacs as the value of the Candy House property. In view of the failure of the respondent to discharge the burden an amount of Rs. 8.65 lacs has to be added as undisclosed income of the respondent Mr. Subhash Shetty learned counsel for the respondent supports the order.
In respect of a taxpayer to whom the double taxation avoidance agreement applies, the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that taxpayer. In other words, if the provisions of DTAA are more beneficial to the taxpayer, then the provisions of DTAA would prevail over the Indian Income-tax Act. Since the DTAA is silent about the surcharge and education cess for the purpose of deduction of tax at source, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the taxpayer may take advantage of that provision in the DTAA for deduction of tax. The CIT(A) has only deleted the tax component to the extent of surcharge and education cess at the rate applicable under the DTAA. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the orders of lower authority. Accordingly the same are confirmed.
Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. The company became a sick industrial company within the meaning of SICA.It was proposed that 30 acres of land along with building and structure to be disposed of.
In the present case, the AO had levied penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not under dispute that the assessee had claimed wrong depreciation on account of additions made in the machinery and factory building accounts, which has been surrendered by the assessee to buy peace of mind. The explanation had been submitted during the assessment proceedings as well as in the penalty proceedings.
it is well settled that even if an issue is brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the audit party, it would not preclude the Assessing Officer from acting on such communication as long as the final opinion to take appropriate action is that of the Assessing Officer and not that of the audit party. Referring to the decision in case of CIT v. P.V.S Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, it is equally well settled however that if the Assessing Officer has acted only under compulsion of the audit party and not independently, the action of re-opening would be vitiated.
Considering the fact that the entire amount of service tax and interest has been paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice, I reduce the penalty under section 78 to 25% of the service tax but confirm the penalty imposed under section 77 by the impugned orders. The appellants are directed to pay penalty under section 78 confirmed by this order within 30 days of the communication of this order. Failing which, the appellants shall be liable to pay 100% of penalty as imposed in the impugned orders. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
We are conscious of the fact that what is in dispute is not the question as to whether bio-compost fertiliser is a final product or not, but on the other hand the question is as to whether such final product is liable to be brought under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules or not. Press mud is an unavoidable and inevitable waste which arises when the cane juice obtained after crushing the sugar cane is further processed for manufacture of sugar. Press mud is nothing but impurities present in the cane juice.
In our opinion, the assessee himself having taken these two non-related parties as comparables in its TP study, it cannot now turn back and say that one of the parties is not comparable without giving any cogent or convincing reason. The only reason given by the assessee in this regard is that the use of technology availed from Dupont has restricted application. It is, however, observed from the relevant figures that the domestic sales generated by the assessee using the technology of Dupont is quite comparable with the domestic sales generated from the use of technology of its AE Kansai Japan. There is thus no merit in the stand of the assessee that Depont is not a comparable case with Kansai Japan.
The hon’ble Ahmedabad Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Well Pack Packaging v. Deputy CIT reported at [2003] 78 TTJ (Ahd) 448 has held that revaluation of depreciable assets and conversion of a partnership firm into company does not lead to incidence of capital gain inasmuch as revaluation is made in the hands of the assessee by writing up the value of assets in the books. In view of the provisions of sections 575, 576 and 577 of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no transfer involved when a company got itself registered under Part IX of the Companies Act. In view of this, there is no question of applicability of the provision of section 45 or 50 or any other provisions of the Income-tax Act arise on conversion of a firm into company.
From the fact that the income of the society comprised of receipts from the activity of letting out a kalyana mantapa owned by it on rent, fees received from the members on sale of liquor in the bar run by the assesse, it does not follow that the activities of the Assessee are not genuine or that the activities are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Assessee.
