In this case, the factory is located in a village and the village does not have adequate facilities for employees and therefore to get the proper employees, it becomes necessary for the assessee to provide transportation facility from the nearest city. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is providing transportation facility to its employees as a welfare measure, but it is necessity to ensure that the manufacture takes place properly. Therefore, in the case before me, it can be said that the service has a relation to the business of manufacture and has a nexus.
So far as question (i) is concerned, the respondent assessee has claimed deduction of interest on tax free bonds of Rs.5,60,11,644/-. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of interest on tax free bonds. While preparing the said details, it was noticed that 6% Government of India Capital Index Bonds purchased during the year had inadvertently been categorized as tax free bonds and, therefore, interest of Rs.75,00,000/- earned on such bonds had also inadvertently escaped tax.
In its reply dated 19th June 2012 to the notice dated 26th May 2012 the Respondent has denied any liability whatsoever. It is, inter alia, stated in the reply sent by the Respondent through its counsel that “In the facts and circumstances, please advise your client that my client is not liable to pay any sum of US$ 350,000 or any other amount under the Agreement dated 18.05.2008 as alleged.
Delhi HC upholds deduction claim under Section 80HHC, dismissing penalty. Ruling based on Supreme Court decisions. Full analysis of ITA 47/2013 judgment.
In this view of the matter, we opine that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in reversing the view taken by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal is proper, does not suffer from any error of law and therefore we answer the questions posed in the affirmative to hold that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction even before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years.
Here, the only question, which false for our determination, is as to whether the Additional Director had the authority under section 132 (1) of the Act to issue warrant of search and seizure. In view of the amendment brought by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, this point need not detain us much. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 has specifically inserted the words “Additional Director” in section 132 (1) of the Act with effect from 01.06.1994, besides other authorities.
Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner that the assessment orders passed on remand are the subject matter of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, as the case may be. It is, therefore, for the petitioner to work out its remedy in the said forum including appropriate interlocutory orders as against tax and interest. The writ petition filed challenging the letter demanding payment of arrears is, per se, not maintainable for the abovesaid reason. The petitioner, having availed the statutory remedy, has to seek indulgence in the appeals said to have been filed.
In the present case, the Fly Ash Handling System, even though classified under plant and machinery as a general item, is still qualified as a different class under the heading ‘Air pollution control equipment’ entitled for higher amount of depreciation. Therefore, the special category, under which air pollution control equipment is placed, applies to the Fly Ash Handing System installed by the assessee. Its eligibility for higher amount of depreciation will not be shadowed by the general rate provided for plant and machinery.
The short point in question is whether only a registered trademark has a right under any law for the time being in force In India and whether any law other than enacted law In force In India will come within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
The entire case is based on principal claim of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. It is undisputed fact that the duty amount was not paid on the due date in relation to the period for which the authority had found short-payment essentially because there was subsequent payment of the said amount, that cannot ipso facto result in revenue neutrality, merely because the appellants are entitled to avail credit in respect of the duty paid.
