Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs Kit ply Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether laminated panels of particle and medium density fibre board should be classified under sub- heading no. 4406.90 and 4407.90 or under subheading no. 4408.90?
The learned Judicial Member had confirmed the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings both on the basis of invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person and the service of notice on legal heir of assessee beyond the period of limitation, whereas the learned Accountant Member set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) holding the reassessment proceedings as valid having been initiated after issuing valid notice and its proper service. The Third Member vide his opinion dated 8-12-2010 concurred with the decision reached by learned Judicial Member on invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings as void and agreed with the learned Accountant Member on the validity of service of notice holding that the notice could be validly served beyond the time-limit prescribed under section 149 of the Income-tax Act.
Four Soft Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee given by Indian company to its subsidiary outside India would not fall within the definition of ‘international transaction’. In the absence of any charging provision, the lower authorities are not correct in bringing aforesaid transaction under the purview of transfer pricing. The Tribunal observed that corporate guarantee is very much incidental to the business of the taxpayer and hence, the same cannot be compared to a bank guarantee transaction of the Bank or financial institution.
1. I have been privileged to read the judgement prepared by brother Justice Dr. Satish Chandra. I agree with the final verdict in the present appeal but respectfully, I express my separate opinion. We have heard Shri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants.
The Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)- All the assets of the business were not rented out by the appellant company. It was doing the main business of manufactures, imports, purchases and dealing in scientific apparatus, chemicals, chemical products, articles of glass, metal, wood, paper etc., more or less connected with science, as given clause 3 (a) of the memorandum of association.
Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (Delhi High Court)- It is critical to examine if the agent has carried out work wholly or almost wholly for the other enterprise, to determine if he is an independent agent under the India- Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The attribution of profit to the Permanent Establishment (PE) needs to be done on the basis of a Transfer Pricing Analysis.
The assessee has paid both the service tax and interest for delayed payments before issue of show cause notice under the Act. Sub-Sec.(3) of Sec. 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under Sub-Sec.(1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty under Sec. 76 of the Act.
DCIT Vs M/s Sri Shanmugavel Mills Ltd (Madras High Court)- The facts of the case, thus show that the provisions made was not tax payment of bonus but payment, as part of the wages and as an incentive for the performance of the workers.
Shyam Enteprises Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court)-Amendment in S. 43 (3) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 does not make any change in the definition of the word ‘plant’, which remains an inclusive definition. It includes buildings or furniture and fittings, which are other than, and are not integrally connected with the plant. The building, which does not have separate existence, and is integral part of the plant, used for the purposes of business or profession, is not to be treated separately for depreciation.
CIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad ) -Section 11 of the Act envisages exemption of certain income of the trust registered under Section 12A of the Act. This itself may require certain scrutiny and applicability of the exemption at the hands of the Assessing Officer. Despite registration under Section 12A of the Act, it is not even the case of the assessee that without any application of mind, the Assessing Officer must grant exemption of whatever claim put forth by the assessee.
