The case of the appellants is that they are aggrieved by the decision of NSE to grant listing and trading approval to the equity shares issued by respondent no. 4 under the rights issue. Surprisingly, the appellants have not made any prayer for setting aside or cancellation of the permission granted by NSE for listing of the said rights issue. How can the appellants be said to be aggrieved when the appellants have participated and have been benefited from the said rights issue and no prayer is made for setting aside or cancellation of the said rights issue.
Circular which is issued by the Board is in terrorem and its plain effect and consequence is to deprive the assessee of the remedy which is provided under the law of moving, as the case may be, the CESTAT, the High Court or the Supreme Court against an order of adjudication of the competent appellate forum.
First to setting-off the carry forward speculative losses against the speculative profit and then set-off the business losses to the extent of the balance speculation profit and other income.
The CBDT, through its circular, could have brought certain aspects to the notice of the Assessing Officer, insofar as assessment was concerned. It had to be the opinion of the Assessing Officer alone which would prevail. In that view of the matter, the circular of CBDT may be a trigger, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer may himself be satisfied that income chargeable to tax in a given case had escaped assessment.
One has to keep in mind the fact that while reopening of an assessment cannot be asked for by the assessee on the ground that it had not furnished Form No. 10 during the original assessment proceedings, this does not mean that when the revenue reopens the assessment by invoking section 147, the assessee would be remediless and would be barred from furnishing Form No. 10 during those assessment proceedings. Therefore, Form No. 10 could be furnished by the assessee-trust during the reassessment proceedings.
In this case there is nothing in the reasons to indicate that there is an escapement of income, but, at the most, need to verify that the reasons of discrepancy between income from profession as per return of income vis-à-vis as per the certificates of tax deduction at source. A variation in these two figures does not necessarily lead to escapement of income,
In the case of consideration received for freight we are of the prima facie view that ocean freight was not liable to service tax. While there are specific entries in Finance Act, 1994 levying tax on transportation of goods by road, rail, aircraft, pipeline etc. there is no entry levying tax on transportation by sea. It has to be reasonably presumed that this is kept outside the tax net and it cannot be taxed under a general entry like business support services. Further it appears that such services are rendered in respect of export cargo.
Whether the penalty was imposed U/s 271(1)(c ) because of the reason that the deduction claimed under section 80-IB by the respondent-assessee was ultimately allowed at a lower level were valid?
The assessment record reveals that the MLA had been placed on the record of the Assessing Officer in the very first instance when the assessment was completed under section 143(3). Thereafter the reassessment proceedings were initiated for those proceedings too and what drove the revenue to issue notice and reopen the proceedings was the master licensing agreement and the nature of ‘royalty income’. The Assessing Officer in that instance consciously after going through the material concluded that the rate of taxation was 15 per cent in the reassessment proceedings.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty was leviable as the appellant itself had surrendered the said amount representing the difference in the sundry creditors in order to buy peace. He, thus, submitted that there was no concealment of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
