Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in deleting the interest charged u/s 234B and 234C while computing income u/s115JB without appreciating the facts that the said section specifically state that all provision of the Act shall apply to the assessee being company mentioned in the said section and therefore section 115J of the Act is no more available for the assessee for delaying the payment of advance tax in view of the insertion of section 115JA 115JB in the Act.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Limited, I.T.A.No. 240/2009 vide its order dated 5.10.2010 has clearly held that where High Court has accepted substantial question of law u/s 260A, this itself shows that issue is debatable. Accordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The documents have been perused. The CLB has noted the mismatching in the questioned and the admitted signatures yet on a perusal of the same and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent which is to the effect that the signatures of a person do vary at different points of time which submission is not out of context.
It is not disputed that there was an agreement to sell between the assessee and M/s Shinestar Buildcon P Ltd. and in terms of the agreement the assessee received Rs. 18 crores as earnest money. Subsequently, the said earnest money was forfeited by the assessee and the same was claimed as capital receipt.
In the present case, the sole and dominant nature of the activity is education and the Petitioner exists solely for the purposes of imparting education. An incidental surplus which is generated, and which has resulted in additions to the fixed assets is utilized as the balance-sheet would indicate towards upgrading the facilities of the college including for the purchase of library books and the improvement of infrastructure.
It is well established in law that no one can act in judicial capacity if his conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind or impartially. In the present case, we have a reasonable apprehension that the A.O. who has passed the impugned order does not have open mind and, therefore, cannot pass order impartially.
The depreciation u/s 32 is allowed on the actual cost of the assets. The term ‘actual cost’ has been defined in section 43(1) according to which, ‘actual cost’ means ‘the actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority’. So, the only deduction permissible from the actual cost is the amount, which has been met by any other person or authority.
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that when on the ground on which the reopening of assessment is based, no additions are made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, he cannot make additions on some other grounds which did not form part of the reasons recorded by him.
As regards the payment made by Gemini International Tours and Travels is concerned, we find that the agent receives the clients and leave them in the resorts or hotels for which he is paid commission. The nature of the activity of the agent at Maldives is only to facilitate the movements of the tourists of the assessee within the country of Maldives and to see that no inconvenience is caused to them. He is not entitled to take any decision as regards the destination of the tourists or with regard to their stay and accommodation. Therefore, services rendered by him also cannot be said to be technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. If the said services cannot be termed as technical services, then the payment made to the agent can only be considered as his business income which can be taxed in India only if he has a PE in India. As there is no PE in India for Mr. Hussain Shiham, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the EON Technology (P.) Ltd. (cited Supra), this ground of appeal is also allowed.
The Notification in question clearly requires an assessee to file refund claim on quarterly basis within a period of 60 days from the end of relevant quarter during which the goods stands exported. Such period prescribed by the notification cannot be extended by courts working within the parameters of the excise laws.
