Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of section 10A of the Act were amended with effect from assessment year 2001-02 and as per the amended provisions, the profit and gains derived by an eligible undertaking are required to be deducted from the total income.
No penalty can be levied under s 271(1)(c) when there was only the CBDT Circular on the taxation of ESOP shares and where the assessee offered certain income in a particular year and paid taxes bona fidely and the AO taxed the same in another year.
Sahney Kirk wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- In the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the transaction was not genuine, the amounts received by an intermediary cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
Bajaj Travels Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Delhi HC)- The appellant submitted a detailed written reply dated 17th November, 2005. The defence was that it was paying service tax as per its bona fide understanding that the service tax was to be paid on the commission retained by the appellant. It was pleaded that the matter of calculation was not clear to it. Therefore, it had been filing its service tax returns on the basis of the commission retained by it and the correct method of computing the service tax was pointed out by the visiting team of the department. Therefore, the allegation of suppression, mis-statement were wrongly attributed to it. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to series of orders passed by the various Benches of CESTAT where such penalties were set aside holding that when the service tax/short-service tax was paid before the show cause notice, it was a bona fide error.
Foster Pty. Ltd., In Re- Advance Ruling Authority The applicant is a company incorporated in Australia and is a tax resident of that country. The applicant entered into a contract with Ravva Oil Singapore (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore for provision of services in connection with the business of oil and gas exploration and production. Ravva Oil Singapore alongwith others has in turn entered into a production sharing contract with the Government of India for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil and gas in the Ravva Oil and Gas Field. The applicant submits that Ravva Oil Singapore was not deducting tax on payments made by it to the applicant under the belief that such payments were not chargeable to tax in India. In this context, the applicant has approached this Authority with the present application seeking an advance ruling on the question whether the consideration received/receivable by the applicant under the terms of the agreement with Ravva Oil Singapore is liable to tax as royalty as defined in Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Australia.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
Amar R Shanbhag Vs ITO (Mumbai High Court)- There was inordinate delay in obtaining commencement certificate and, therefore, the petitioner once again terminated the Development Agreement dated 17th September 2004.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (‘Act’) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2003 read with the order dated July 10, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.38(Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Dinesh B Parikh Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Admission of Additional Evidence– Whether when no application for additional evidence is made, ITAT should even then consider the additional evidence while deciding the appeal
In case of an accident within the factory, the compensation has to be paid by the company in accordance with the law and this is obligatory. To fulfil this legal obligation, the assessee has taken insurance. Therefore, it can be said that in this case the insurance premium is definitely relatable to business activity and is to fulfil one of the legal obligations of providing compensation to worker in case of injury in the factory. Under these circumstances, it was held that Cenvat credit of service tax paid on insurance taken to pay workmen’s compensation to the insurance company is admissible. Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
