Assessee filed Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Rules at the time of filing revised returns in respect of each of the assessment years under consideration. Thus, evidently, the requirements of section 11(2) of the Act had been complied with before the completion of the assessments. Therefore, while completing the assessments for the assessment years under consideration, the Assessing Officer had the necessary information in respect of the claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act made by the assessee before him.
In short the department’s argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not properly adjudicated the matter and hence the issue should be set aside cannot be accepted as Assessing Officer at the time of the assessment was of the view that the facts are same and when the issue travelled to the Commissioner (Appeals) without explaining the basis of coming to certain conclusions, made general observations.
It is settled principle of law that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating the show-cause proceeding. A show-cause notice is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.
Supreme Court’s judgment in MIL India Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (210) ELT 188 wherein it was held that Parliament had taken away the power of remand from Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by amending Section 35A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 11/05/2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question can be treated as parts or accessories of computer system or peripherals. As per clarification by the Commissioner also printer is a part of computer system and peripherals. The printer cannot be operated without inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges and thus the said items can certainly be treated as accessories to the printer.
It is quite clear that the claimant has to show that the burden of excise duty has not been passed on to any other person and not only to the buyers. In this case, the purchaser being the defence organisation of Government of India, the question of passing on the excise duty to any other person does not arise and ordnance depot not being a manufacturer of any goods,
The undisputed fact in the present case remained that the tax on the entire income received by the assessee was required to be deducted at appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195(2) of the Act. Had the payer made the deduction of tax at the appropriate rate, the net tax payable by the assessee would have been Nil. Thus there was no liability to pay advance tax by the assessee.
From statement of one of assessees, it is clear that in respect of 39.19 acres of land, the transaction is complete and the assessees have received full consideration from ‘N’ as per the MOU. Hence, the transaction in respect of 39.19 acres is completed and each of the assessees have got the income of Rs. 25,07,508 in the said transaction. Hence, the said amount has to be treated as income from the real estate and liable to be brought under tax.
It is clear from the provisions of Sec. 45(1) , being a deeming provision any gain which has arisen during the year has to be taken for consideration irrespective of the fact that the transferor may receive the sale consideration in subsequent years. Further, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that in family members cases, for the capital gains arising out of the transfer of shares, the return of income have been accepted by the department under scrutiny assessment, cannot be accepted under the principles of consistency as we are not bound to follow the decisions of the authorities which are inconsistent with the provisions of section 45(1) of the Act.
. The dearness relief is neither compensation received in lieu of termination of the employment, nor any amount due paid in lumpsum or otherwise after cessation of the employment.
