Refund has been denied to the appellant on the ground that refund of Cenvat credit had been claimed in respect of input services received by the appellant after the period of export and hence cannot be considered as input services used for the purpose of exported service during the period in question. This is a fact on record that these input services were received after the period of export and this fact is not challenged by the appellants. I find that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has examined admissibility of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2012 (278) ELT 50 (Kar.)and the Hon’ble High Court in para 7 of its judgment has held as under:-
Carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns. Credit for reducing carbon emission or greenhouse effect can be transferred to another party in need of reduction of carbon emission. It does not increase profit in any manner and does not need any expenses. It is a nature of entitlement to reduce carbon emission, however, there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get this entitlement. Carbon credit is not in the nature of profit or in the nature of income.
It is evident from the clauses referred to hereinabove, and from what has been narrated in this order earlier, that the bondholders were deliberately misled to believe that they would receive at least Rs. 250 in cash for each bond of Rs. 1,000, i.e., at least one-fourth of their principal latest by September 30, 2003. It is also clear that this scheme of arrangement was formulated by the petitioners only to avoid discharging the legitimate dues of the bondholders, even the principal amount due to them ;
As is apparent from the aforesaid objects, society has been created for providing medical relief to the needy and poor. The ld. AR contended before us that 1st proviso to amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f., 01.04.2009 was not applicable in their case, the object of the society being to provide medical relief.
In the case before us also, technical services were rendered by Toyo through the medium of the said technicians. It is not the assessee’s case that the technicians were not answerable to Toyo. Nor is it the assessee’s case that there was a separate agreement between the technicians and itself and that the only role played by Toyo was the provision of technicians and not the rendering of technical services through them.
Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange of one property for the other. Higher depreciation on plastic mould to be allowed only if asset used in a business constituting a separate unit
On a conjoint reading of the provisions of section 69 and section 142A of the Act, it appears that for the purpose of resorting to the provisions of section 142A of the Act, the Assessing Officer would first be required to record a satisfaction that the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account.
There is no dispute with reference to the fact that assessee made provision for expenses to an extent of Rs. 10,01,98,459/- on about 23 items in the books of account. There is also no dispute to the fact that entire provision so made was disallowed in the computation under the head ‘tax deductible but not deducted on provisions as on 31st March, 2007’ in the computation of income. Therefore, the entire provision so made was disallowed under section 40(a) (i) / (ia) while filing the return of income by the itself.
It is true that the appellants had obtained encumbrances certificates from the Sub-Registrar prior to purchase which show that there were no encumbrances to the subject flat. It is also true that the appellants had obtained loan from Vijaya Bank, Brigade Road Branch, Bangalore for purchase of the said flat.
Admittedly, the return was processed u/s 143(1), as per the assessment order, on 15.05.2002 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2008. Therefore, as per section 151, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain the sanction of Joint Commissioner of Income tax as four years had lapsed from the end of relevant assessment year.
