Consequences for breach of the contract are provided in Chapter VI of the Contract Act which contains three sections, namely, Section 73 to Section 75. As per Section 73 of the Contract Act, the party who suffers by the breach of contract is entitled to receive from the defaulting party, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him by such breach, which naturally arose in usual course of things from such breach, or which the two parties knew when they make the contract to be likely the result of the breach of contract.
From a perusal of Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 , it will be seen that the same is applicable in three circumstances – (1) when the manufacturer of the final products shifts his factory to another site, (2) the factory is transferred from the existing owner to the another person on account of change of ownership, and (3) the factory is transferred on account of merger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of the factory to a joint venture with specific provision for transfer of liabilities of such factory.
The demand has been issued based on figures taken from income tax returns where undisputedly the incomes were shown on accrual basis and not on the basis of realization of amounts. The learned advocate pointed out certain amounts were not received by the appellant company from their clients due to disputes. He also submitted that service tax rate adopted in the show-cause notice for certain period was erroneous and same was not the rate prevalent on the dates when service was rendered.
Visa facilitators, merely facilitate the procurement of visa and directly assist individuals who intend to travel abroad, to complete the immigration formalities. Visa facilitators collect certain statutory charges like visa fee, certification fee, attestation fee, emigration fee, etc. from the visa applicant, which are remitted to the respective authorities, and in addition collect service charges for themselves as remuneration for the assistance provided by them to obtain the visa.
In this case of specific rate of duty, prima facie, the ‘ place of removal’ would be the ‘ place of removal’ for the purpose of Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, i.e. the places on removal from where the duty is liable to be paid, which in this case, is the factory gate of Sonadih factory, as the duty on clinker becomes payable at the time of removal from Sonadih factory.
Assessee has filed the details of apportionment of the expenses based on the percentage of gross sales of the Indian branch to total gross sales by the U.K. company. The assessee has also filed financial statements to show that the U.K. company has shown executive or general administration expenditure as indicated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Explanation (iv) to section 44C separately
First proviso to Section 158BC (a) required no notice under Section 148 for making a block assessment, merely because the notice required to be issued under Section 158BC (a) calling for the block return is analogous to the notice under Section 148 to reopen an assessment, is without any basis, either on principle or on authority.
The assessee made a claim for working capital adjustment before the TPO. The TPO made a detailed analysis exhibiting how such an adjustment is to be granted. According to the assessee, the TPO made reference to Rule 10B(3) demonstrating comparability adjustment. On the strength of this Rule, the TPO opined that Indian transfer pricing provisions prescribed only reasonable accurate adjustment. He also pointed out that thereafter the TPO made reference to OECD Commentary and also the judicial precedents on comparability adjustment.
Since the provisions of section 10A and 10B are similar in nature and as the jurisdictional High Court decided the issue while considering the provisions of section 10B also respectfully following the above, we uphold the contention of assessee that carry forward business losses and depreciation cannot be set off to the profits of the undertaking while working the claim u/s 10B. Therefore, AO is directed to do the needful in light of the above principles laid down.
It is necessary to examine the question whether it is open to the Assessing Officer, having already formed an opinion that no special audit was necessary, and not having communicated the same to the petitioner, to change his mind and form an opinion subsequently that a special audit is necessary having regard to the complexities of the accounts and the protection of the interests of the revenue.
