A reading of Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), makes it clear that revenues on account of mobilization are to be brought to tax in India. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra) has been rendered by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court, which happens to be the jurisdictional High Court in the present case. Sedco Forex International Inc. (supra), therefore, is squarely applicable to this case.
No Cenvat credit on construction service if assessee is engaged in renting of immovable property – Commercial or industrial construction service or works contract service is an input service for the output service namely immovable property. Immovable property is neither subjected to central excise duty nor to service tax and input credit of service tax can be taken only if the output is a service liable to service tax or a goods liable to central excise duty.
A simple reading of this section suggests that in case of set off of business loss vis-a-vis depreciation, the first preference shall be given to the business loss as per the provisions of Sec. 72(1) of the Act for the simple reason that the business loss can be carried forward only upto 8 assessment years whereas the depreciation can be carried over upto unlimited period.
The Tribunal made a limited remand to the lower authorities to determine the exact nature and quantum of brick work which would entitle the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 37 which is limited to Rs. 2.75 crores.
The department has issued clarification vide circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and as per the said clarification, it was clarified that in case of commercial training and coaching institutes, the exclusion shall apply only to the sale value of standard textbooks, which are priced. Any study material or written text provided by such institute as a part of service which does not satisfy the above criteria will be subjected to service tax. On the basis of this clarification, the demand has been confirmed against the appellant.
From a reading of section 10A(7A), it is clear that its provisions apply to a situation where an undertaking whose income is deductible under section 10A is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger before the end of the specified 10 years. In the present case the STPI undertaking of the assessee stands transferred in a scheme of demerger before the completion of the specified period and, therefore, provisions of section 10A(7A) apply.
Assessee was engaged in the speculation transaction of sale and purchase of units without taking delivery and the account was settled by crediting the difference. The Tribunal after considering section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 observed that no property in the said units passed on to the assessee inasmuch as the assessee never acquired the property in the units as the units contracted to be bought were future unascertained goods. Similarly, it could not pass on the property to the party to whom the units were contracted and therefore, there was no ‘sale’ or ‘turnover’ effected by the assessee in the legal sense for the purposes of getting the accounts audited under section 44AB.
The duty imposed by the Act upon the tax payer is to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessee ; he is not required to inform the Income-tax Officer as to what legal inference should be drawn from the facts disclosed by him nor to advise him on questions of law. Whether on the facts found or disclosed, the company was a dealer in shares, may be regarded as a conclusion on a mixed question of law and fact and from the failure on the part of the company to disclose to the Income-tax Officer this legal inference, no fault may be found with the company
This issue in fact fell for decision before this Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 130 of 1998, dated 17-12-1998] wherein this Court by its judgment and order has upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the claim of loss of the assessee in the matter of sale of Part B of the PCD in the self-same rights issue is permissible as short-term capital loss.
Once there are reasons for the AO to believe, whether such reasons originate out of the record already scrutinized or otherwise, he shall be within his competence to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. The formation of belief by the AO must always be tentative and not a firm or final conclusion as the latter will negate the very object of giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee as it will amount to post-decisional hearing.
