The Tribunal held that income earned by the taxpayer on sale of factory building, plant and machinery although not taxable as “Profit and gains of business or profession” was in the nature of income of business though assessed as capital gains and h
he Explanation to s.73 creates a fiction that the loss suffered by certain companies from the business of purchase & sale of shares shall be deemed to be speculation loss. The Explanation is not inconsistent with the object of introduction. The CBDT
Delay in filing a first information report (FIR) of an accident is no ground to deny compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Ravi vs Badrinarayan. In this case, an 8-year-old boy was hit by a motor vehicle and he was taken to the hospital by his father and others. The report was filed after three months, as the child suffered severe permanent injuries. He lost control of his kidney function. The motor vehicles tribunal and the Rajasthan high court, however, dismissed the claim for compensation on the ground that the FIR was not filed immediately. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court awarded him Rs 2.5 lakh. It said: “Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR.”
The Assessee had a unit at Bhopal which was not functioning since the assessment year 1997-98. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of closed unit at Bhopal on the ground that depreciation would be allowable s
Tribunal has exercised the powers under Section 80 of the Act and therefore setting aside the penalty under Section 76 by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be held to be unreasonable. Further, the respondent has admittedly paid 25% of the penalty within one month from the date of the order of the original authority. Therefore, the waiver of penalty in excess of 25% of the Service Tax evaded under Section 78 is also justified and, therefore, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference.
. The respondent functions as loan processor between ICICI bank, Home Finance Co. Ltd. and the borrowers. The bank collects processing fee from the borrowers. Out of the amount so collected as processing fee, some portion is paid to the respondent as commission for their services. The department was of the view that the respondents rendered “Business Auxiliary Services” to the bank and, therefore, service tax was payable on the commission fee received by them from the bank. On being pointed out by the department, th
The SC dismissed the appeal of Assessee against the Bombay HC order allowing the customs authorities to charge dues for keeping imported goods in the warehouse beyond the permitted time. The firm had imported capital goods for its unit. The goods were kept in the warehouse under bond. After the expiry of the period, the firm applied for extension of the facility. Meanwhile, the government enlarged the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to cover agro-based industries. The sugar firm availed of this facility and claimed exemption. The authorities rejected the request. The importer moved the high court, and later appealed to the SC, without success. The SC judgment clarified the benefit of exemption granted under the export promotion scheme would not be available to the firm. It is held that Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., within the initially permitted period or during the permitted extended period. It is trite to say that when the goods are cleared from the warehouse after the expiry of the permitted period or its permitted extension, the goods are deemed to have been improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act, with the consequence that the rate of duty has to be computed according to the rate applicable on the date of expiry of the permitted period under Section 61.
The SC held that central excise duty can be levied on furniture permanently fixed to the walls or ground. It set aside the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which took a contrary view. This Mumbai Company was engaged in interior decoration of luxury hotels. It entered into turn-key contracts with its clients and furniture was part of the work contract. When the revenue authorities demanded excise duty, it protested the woodwork was carried out in the premises of the hotels and they were permanent fixtures. They cannot be removed without causing damage to the goods or cannibalisation. When the contention was rejected, the firm moved the tribunal, which accepted its argument. The excise commissioner appealed to the SC. It quashed the tribunal’s order.
The argument that “controlling interest” was transferred with the shares was not acceptable as the share purchase agreement had been signed by the Power of Attorney (“POA”) holder. In the absence of the copy of the same, which would determine whether
The assessee is a foreign company, having a branch office as well as a subsidiary in India. The assessee decided to close down its branch office and transfer all its assets and liabilities as a going concern to its subsidiary. The assessee adopted C
