Mayfair Resorts Vs. CCEC, Ludhiana – The assessee is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category ‘Mandap Keeper’. During audit for the period of 2004-05, it was noticed by the Department that the assessee surrendered Rs.35 lacs to the Income Tax Department as additional taxable income on the said amount being found cash at the premises of the assessee and the assessee being unable to explain the source of income. According to the department, since only business of the assessee was providing service of ‘Mandap Keeper’, the amount represented proceeds of services provided by the assessee. Accordingly, amount was treated as subject to service tax vide order-in-original dated 28.1.2009. On appeal, the said order was set aside on the ground that without making any enquiry and in absence of any statutory presumption, the department could not treat the amount as representing proceeds of services provided by the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal to this effect in Kipps Education Centre Bathinda Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2009(13) STR 422 was followed. The said order has been affirmed by the Tribunal.
Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of DCIT v. Select Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 1184 & 2460/Del/2008) (Judgment Date: 23 December 2010, Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) held that where a parent company merged with its subsidiary, the benefit of brought forward and set off of losses under Section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) claimed by the amalgamated company, cannot be disallowed on the grounds that there was a change in the shareholding of more than 51 percent of the share capital of the subsidiary company since there was no change in control and management of amalgamated company pre and post merger.
Items used in the manufacture of capital goods and parts thereof and are eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Versus M/s Mukta Metal Works – Whether the Tribunal is right in holding at page 68 of the order that the office note dated 21.05.2001 which was appended to 158BC order dated 21.5.2001 and is part of the said order, does not constitute a satisfaction note within the parameter of Section 158 BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the person who has borrowed money through the assessee broker who is the searched person for the purpose of order U/s 158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the period of limitation for making an application under section 34 for setting aside an arbitral award is to be reckoned from the date a copy of the award is received by the objector by any means and from any source, or it would start running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to him by the arbitrator — the arbitrator gave a copy of the award, signed by him, to the claimant (the respondent) in whose favour the award was made.
It was held that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside on the short ground that while deciding the case, the Tribunal has ignored the specific directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 30th August, 2001. It is evident from the impugned order, in particular from paras 15 and 16 that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts obtaining in the present case in their correct perspective, which has resulted in vitiating its decision on the question of leviability of import duty. Although, from para 14 of the impugned order it is evident that the Tribunal was conscious of the direction of this Court that it was required to first record the correct facts and then in the factual perspective locate and apply the relevant law, yet in the very next paragraph it proceeds to hold that when it is accepted that Notification No. 118/59-Cus. did not exist at the time of clearance of the vessel from the ship yard, the persistent plea that the ship was manufactured in a warehouse located in India and therefore, it attracted excise duty alone need not be considered at all. In our opinion, in light of the decision and directions of this Court in C.A. 1998 of 2000, judicial discipline obliged the Tribunal to examine the entire legal issue after ascertaining the foundational facts, regardless of its earlier view in the matter. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. (the taxpayer) had entered into a License & Technical Assistance agreement with Brenco Inc., USA on 19th August, 2002 which expired on 25th June, 2007. Under the agreement the taxpayer was required to pay a certain amount as royalty to Brenco Inc.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Airtech Private Limited (Appeal no. ITA 3591 Del )/2010) on documentation aspect of transfer pricing (TP). The Tribunal held that contemporaneous TP Documentation was to be maintained by the taxpayer annually as the transaction was separate and was influenced by changing market dynamics.
The Hyderabad Bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal [the Tribunal] has in the case of M/S Convergys Information Management (India) (F) Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA no. 299/Hl/2009] , held that in a cost plus arrangement expenses incurred post the date of entering into agreement has to be marked up, as no customer would pay mark up before entering into agreement.
The Supreme Court thus held that the attempt of the High Court to read down the provision by way of substituting the word “OR” by an “AND” is erroneous and therefore interest in case of wrong availment of cenvat credit has to be paid from the date of availment of credit and not date of utilisation.
