Shroff United Chemicals Limited. versus The Union of India – The Bombay high court last week described the denial of interest on refund of service tax by the deputy commissioner as ‘specious’ in the case, Shroff United Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India. It asked the revenue authorities to pay interest for the delayed refund. The firm, in anticipation of import of intellectual property services, had obtained service tax registration.
This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 3-4-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) bearing 1TA No. 1020/Bang/08 for the assessment year 2005- 06.
ACIT v Headstrong Services India Pvt Ltd ITAT has held that The assessee company is registered as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for manufacture and export of computer software for export purposes. The assessee being eligible for 100% tax holiday u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has exercised this option not to claim this exemption for this year in accordance with provision of sub Section 7 to Section 10A of the Act.
CIT v Tata SSL Ltd (Mumbai High Court) – by paying the impugned charges to Mahanagar Gas Ltd., the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The Tribunal held that the facilities served the sole purpose of supplying the gas to the assessee’s work and, therefore, it was an integral part of the profit earning process and facilitated in carrying on the assessee’s business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit to the assessee.
CCE, Trichy Vs. SBI, Kumbakonam (CESTAT Chennani) – The fourth proviso to the said Section 78 provides that the reduced penalty of 25% is available if the same is paid within 30 days of the Commissioner (Appeals) but this proviso applies in the case where the Commissioner (Appeals) enhances the penalty and not where he reduces the penalty. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty and hence the respondents cannot take advantage to the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78.
Dy. CIT Vs. Ms/. Shah Builders & Developers,- Uto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as “housing project” or ‘residential plus commercial’. Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% ofthe total built-up area ofthe plot; cl (d) inserted in s. 80-/B(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 is prospective and not retrospective.
Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation v DIT (ITAT Chennai)- The principle that the institutions run by the charitable societies may collect fees and service charges does not mean that the institutions can charge fees, etc, at commercial rates from all the people without giving any element of charity to needy people.
Delhi High Court judgment on Writ Petition No. 328, 340/2010 – Ravina and Associates vs CIT. Stay on recovery of tax demand. Key details here.
Land Development vs ITO: ITAT Delhi dismisses Revenue’s appeal on deemed dividend, upholding CIT(A)’s order vacating demand for FY 2005-06 & 2007-08.
Just because of vouchers being doubted by the AO and not coming to correct conclusions on them, as he has resorted to only arbitrations in so far as he has presumed the rates of loading and unloading charges without bringing any material on record in support of them. The ld.AR has sufficiently clarified that fluctuation in cartage is always involved due to time factor, urgency of material, varying waiting time in process for labour which has to be necessarily paid accordingly. It is not the straight-jacket or fixed rate on which any freight or cartage is to be paid according to the assessee’s whims or the AO’s whims. It is determined by the market fluctuations and contingencies. Therefore, the AO was not justified when all the expenses were fully supported by vouchers and other relevant details and evidences. The addition has been worked purely on assumptions and presumptions and surmises. Therefore both on law and facts, the addition of Rs.8,87,257/- has no merits and stands deleted. ACIT, Faridabad Vs M/s Presco Mec Autocomp Pvt Ltd
