The question, whether the above difference between the fair market price and the concessional price should or should not be added to the total income of the assessee(s) Society, needs to be re-looked by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, ‘CIT(A)’]. Apart from the afore-stated question, CIT(A) would take into account, whether the above-mentioned practice of selling sugar at concessional rate has become the practice or custom in the Co-operative Sugar Industry?;
Statutory bodies (including BIS) are empowered to frame rules or regulations, exercise coercive powers, including inspection, raids; they possess search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility.
In view of the presumption in the law that an penal liability can never be passed on to another person who has not committed the offence, the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Offshore Hook-up that department has to prove that unjust enrichment would mean that some extra effort is required in addition to merely looking at the balance sheet or profit & loss account on the part of the department.
Appellate authority has not applied his own independent mind to various issues involved in the appeal and various contentions raised by the appellant. It stand simply observed by the appellate authority that all the issues stand discussed in detail by the adjudicating authority and he find himself in agreement with the same.
As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned SDR in the case of Bajaj Travels Ltd. (supra) I find that the issue involved in the: case was the issue therein the show cause notices were issued prior to 10.05.2008, i.e. on 17.10.2005 invoking the provisions of sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for imposition of penalty.
The penalty was based on certain quantum additions. Such additions came to be deleted by the Commissioner(Appeals). Further appeal by Revenue before the Tribunal was rejected. When the Commissioner was deciding the revision petition of the assessee, what was prevailing was the order of the Tribunal.
In our considered opinion, reliance placed by the Revenue on clause (d) to sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act to defeat the assessee’s claim for deduction in the present case is quite misplaced. Firstly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has laid down that the said provision is prospective and not retrospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively. Further, the plea of the Revenue that only a pure housing project is eligible for deduction is also completely misplaced having regard to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Brahma Associates (supra).
Assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company. They have considered the terms of the agreement dated 12-03-2003 among the parties to the joint venture and held that credit for TDS certificates cannot be denied to the assessee while assessing the contract receipts mentioned in the said certificates as income of the assessee. The income shown in the TDS certificates has either to be taxed in the hands of the joint venture or in the hands of the individual co-joint venturer. As the joint venture has not filed return of income and claimed credit for TDS certificates and the TDS certificates have not been doubted, credit has to be granted to the TDS mentioned therein for the assessee.
The question of concealment of income and whether the revised return was filed voluntarily or not is a question of fact to be examined and decided upon the facts and circumstances of the each case and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Tribunal to merely rely on earlier orders where this issue was considered and penalties were cancelled.
Arrears of salary and other benefits payable to employees, is not covered by Section 43-B at all. Such liabilities are not contributions to provident fund, superannuation or any other fund or plan which the employer is obliged to extend to its employees to fulfill its statutory or contractual obligations. The character of the amounts in this case is pure and simple arrears of wages, which were directed to be paid as a result of wage revision exercise mandated by an award.
