Baker Technical Services Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – As per order of the Ld. CIT (A) the appeal was posted for hearing on 8.02.2010. On the said date, the assessee sought the adjournment. Again the appeal was fixed on 20th February 2010. But it appears that there was no response from the assessee. Nowhere, it is mentioned by the Ld. CIT (A) that notice was duly served on the assessee fixing the date of hearing. Otherwise also, no prejudice should have been caused to the Ld. CIT (A) if one opportunity would have been given. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) has disposed off the appeal in undue haste. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the entire matter to his file for fresh adjudication as per law after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
ACIT (E) Vs. India ITME Society (ITAT Mumbai) Since the assessee has not maintained separate books of account for these activities of providing other services and charging with a margin, the notification issued u/s 10(23C)(iv) will not applicable in respect of such income from other activities and therefore, the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) is not available in respect of the income earned by the assessee from the activity of providing power installation, electricity, telephone facilities, compressed air hire etc. etc. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption with respect to the receipt and accumulations from the holding and organizing the exhibition and hence, the income from other activities in providing other services by charging huge profit has to be taxed as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed.
CIT Vs. Radhe Developers (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad)- In the present case, we find that the assessee had, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land in question, was given possession thereof and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project. Combined reading of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose of the said Act. It is true that the title in the land had not yet passed on to the assessee. It is equally true that such title would pass only upon execution of a duly registered sale deed. However, we are, for the limited purpose of these proceedings, not concerned with the question of passing of the title of the property, but are only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), the ownership has been understood differently in different context. For the limited purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also; even if it was necessary.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 26/02/2009 passed for A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs. 16,50,000/- which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals).
Issue before us involved in the current case is regarding the contract of supply, erection, installation and commissioning of fire, hydraulic systems and the issue before us in the case of the appellants own case in Final Order dt. 22/7/2010 was for supply, erection, installation and commissioning of power systems and distribution systems.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE (SC) – The language of Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is clear that for availing concession from excise duty on excisable goods used in a specified industrial process, a person must obtain a registration certificate from the Collector and that “the concession shall, unless renewed by the Collector, cease on the expiry of the registration certificate”. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the appellant expired on 31.12.1995. Hence, the exemption granted under the notification ceased on 31.12.1995. The fresh registration certificate in favour of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. was issued on 26.06.1996 and we find on a reading of the copy of the CT-2 certificate annexed as Annexure P5 that the registration certificate was not for any period prior to 26.06.1996. As the procedure laid down in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules has not been complied with, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption of excise duty under the exemption notification during the period from 01.01.1996 to 25.06.1996.
Flex Engineering Limited Vs CCE (SC) – , If a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as aforesaid, each machine is tailor made according to the requirements of individual customers. If the results are not in conformity with the order, then the machine loses its marketability and is of no use to any other customer. Thus, the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to individual testing.
CCE Vs M/S Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (SC) -Process of mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount to manufacture. Both the lower authorities have found as a fact that the said process merely resulted in the improvement of quality of bitumen. Bitumen remained bitumen. There was no change in the characteristics or identity of bitumen and only its grade or quality was improved. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for constructing the roads.
ACIT Vs. Symantec Software India P. Ltd. (ITAT Pune)- Based on the specific facts of the case, the Tribunal has reiterated that the fulfillment of the conditions of section 10A(2) is of utmost importance for claiming a deduction under section 10A. A reference to the new undertaking as expansion by the STPI would not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 10A of the Act.
ADIT (IT) Vs. Warner Brother Pictures Inc (ITAT Mumbai)- even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently, Agency PE provisions are not applicable to the assessee company.
