5. It would be appropriate to reproduce section 36(1)(viii) of the Act as it stood in the relevant assessment years i.e. A.Y.1997-98 in the following terms: – Section 36(1)(viii) : as it stood in the statute during the A.Y.(1997-98) 36(1) – The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28
6. We have thoroughly gone through the averments of both the sides. To appreciate the case of the Revenue, Revenue should have brought to record that Nyco is a consulting engineering firm providing engineering service commercially having been manned by professional qualified engineers. But primary object appears to be sharing of know how to participate in a joint venture to enjoy fruit
23. After careful consideration of the above circular it is clear that the contract for the sale of goods will not be covered within the ambit of sec. 194 C. In the present case we find that the assessee placed orders with the manufacturers for manufacturing of the medicines strictly according to its specifications but the property in such goods passed to the assessee only after these were delivered to him
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee we are of the view that the answers to the questions framed has to be found in favour of the assessee and against Revenue for the reasons given hereinafter. It is clear upon perusal of the facts and circumstances quoted by us hereinabove that if JISCO had to have a successful rights issue it was incumbent that it received a subscription
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. A great deal of emphasis had been laid by he Id. DR on the fact that since the addition has been upheld by the tribunal, then the penalty should also be confirmed. In our considered opinion the mere fact of confirmation of addition cannot per se lead to the confirmation of the penalty
9. From the rival positions of both the parties as well as the provisions of section 41(1) and the legal propositions of various judicial fora, the following issues have emerged. They are: (a) the issue of limitation of period of three years; (b) the issue of discharge of onus, when the assessee has not unilaterally written them off; (c) the issue of unilateral write off for the assessments of the post amendment period i.e. 1.4.1997
In the present case, the alleged amount of Rs. 8.55 lakhs was received by the assessee in cash on account of share application money, penalty under s. 271D cannot be levied because the receipt of share application money is neither loan nor deposit and hence the impugned receipt of Rs. 8.55 lakhs is not governed by s. 269SS of the Act. We therefore, delete the penalty.
In respect of AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed by a revised return that the loss suffered in respect of one s. 10A unit was not liable to be set-off against the profits of another s. 10A unit. The AO rejected the claim and the assessee accepted the decision of the AO. On the question whether the assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, especially in the light
Service tax credit cannot be taken when service tax has not been shown to have been paid by service provider; once it is found that Cenvat credit was irregularly availed by the assessee and by implication to that extent the service tax on the output service was short paid, it has to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
No appeal lies against the order rejecting an application for renewal of CHA Licence. In absence of any other remedy it is open to this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in case where an application for renewal is rejected.
