The fact that in the 80th AGM held on 30th July 2007, the audited accounts for the financial years ended 31st March 2004, 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2006 were placed and adopted makes it clear that any default in that regard by BSMCL stands condoned. No other shareholder has objected to those accounts. They are taken to be the audited accounts. Neither the ROC nor the RD, nor the OL raised any objection. The objection of Mr. H.K. Chadha that adjustment entries have to be made in the accounts prepared by BRS for an earlier period to arrive at the correct picture cannot, in the above circumstances, be countenanced. No material has been placed on record by Mr. H.K. Chadha to substantiate the plea of non-preparation of the audited accounts of the above financial years.
In so far as the specific instances of the abuse of agreement in question are concerned, it is obvious that there has been a settlement between the original complainant and the respondents. Because the complainant does not have any more complaint/grievance of any boycott or the compulsory undertakings which he is to give under the authority of either FMC or FDC so that question will clearly be foreign to the present enquiry.
Bare perusal of provision shows that the sine qua non for resorting to s. 260A is the satisfaction of the Court that the appeal involves more/additional substantial question of law other than the one on which appeal was admitted for hearing. The scheme of the Act is quite clear. Decisions on factual issues are within the domain of authorities and should be sorted out before the matter reaches the High Court in appeal.
The Tribunal in the case of 24/7 Customer Com (P.) Ltd. (supra) had held that if the related party transaction exceeded 15% of the total sales/revenue, the same cannot be taken as a comparable. Following the Coordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the case cited supra, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude, after due verification, those comparables from the list with the related party transactions or controlled transactions in excess of 15% of the total revenue for the financial year 2006-07.
The ground raised by the Revenue relates to exclusion of foreign currency expenses not related to onsite software development from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10A and 80HHE of the Act. The case of the assessee is that foreign expenditure which has been incurred on on-site software development activity should not be excluded from the export turnover.
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act authorizes the A.O. or the CIT (A) to levy penalty in case of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation 1 to A sec.271(1)(c) of the Act specifies as to when the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation so offered is found to be false or the explanation is not proved and when the explanation is not bona fide to treat the same as deemed concealment of income.
Looking to the legislative intent it is not possible to say that the risk covered by insurance service received shall not enjoy Cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service. No doubt, the insurance service may be indirectly connected to the manufacturing or other activity but that may be in relation to manufacture or various other business activities enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The short issue for consideration is whether the appellants could have paid tax on an exempted services and claimed refund under Notification No. 17/2009 which allows refund of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the export of goods. The learned appellate authority has held that when a service is exempted, the appellant cannot pay the taxes and thereafter claim refund of the same on the ground that it is in connection with export purposes.
From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Income-tax Act any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1) of Section 142 may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment year whichever is earlier.
The assessee has placed reliance on some decisions. However, as afore-stated, the matter is purely factual, i.e., based on primary facts on which inference as to a finding of fact, i.e., the explanation with regard to that nature and source of credit being satisfactory or not, keeping the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case into account, is to be drawn. The decisions cited by the assessee have been with reference to the one of positive inference.
