No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.
Mere crediting of the interest to a reserve cannot be said to be an incidence by which the said interest could be charged to tax. Whatever has been recovered by the assessee has been shown as income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim of such interest under the provisions of section 43D and the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that interest had been credited on such type of debts in the reserve account.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. The facts were available before and were within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. The new Assessing Officer as per the reasons recorded on the basis of the same facts, has observed that royalty payment should have been disallowed as it was capital in nature. This is a question of legal inference or interpretation which has been drawn from the same material facts on record. There is no allegation that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee to furnish and state all material facts.
When an order passed by this Court it is to be considered by the public at large and the same concluded at the instance of this Court. Then it is the duty of this Court to give respect to its order by giving sanctity more than, over and above the highest bid.
The validity of a provision cannot be considered or adjudicated upon by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 260A provides for an appeal from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. If it involves a substantial question of law, such question of law should arise from the order of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal cannot consider the validity of a retrospective amendment, no doubt such question does not arise from its order and the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 260A cannot also enable the High Court to consider such validity or otherwise.
Assessee was granted right of lifting water from said well which is independent right given by the State Government for the rent of Rs. one per year. There is also nothing to suggest that right of lifting of water was acquired by assessee by incurring any cost. Such right is not covered by the provisions of section 55(2). Therefore, no capital gain could be worked out, since provisions of section 45(1) read with section 48(1) are not applicable in respect of payment made to assessee in lieu of surrendering the right to lift the water from the well. Accordingly, capital gain as worked out by the Assessing Officer is not justified.
Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises. The Environmental law expects the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws.
A creditor can maintain a winding up petition if he complies with the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the said Act of 1956. In the present case, the respondent-Bank was admittedly a creditor of the company. The company did not dispute such relationship. The company did not dispute receipt of the notice, hence, the winding up petition was maintainable.
It is for the AO when he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may refer the computation of arm’s length price in relation to the said international transaction under section92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was argued by Ld. DCIT (DR) Mr. Tarsem Lal that the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Surinder Mahajan, could not point out any specific mention in the statute.
