Employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service relating to the business and cenvat credit in respect of the same will be admissible.
In the present case, admittedly, no incriminating material was found relating to the alleged unaccounted sales of jewellery by the assessee to M/s. Ranka Jewelers in the course of search carried out at the premises of the assessee. The material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found during the search at the premises of the third party namely Prakash Salunkhe. Therefore, the question of existence of such nexus as mentioned in the preceeding paragraph simply does not arise. Consequently, no addition could be made solely on the basis of material found from the position of the third party.
Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors – The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return.
Merely because other clubs follow the very same accounting policy, it cannot be said to be beyond scrutiny or verification as to the correctness and completeness of the accounting practice followed, and there is any deficiency in such accounting practice or policy, it can very well be tinkered with howsoever universally followed such policy is; there is no proposition in law to force the revenue to accept the accounting system
It is also to be noted that Dr. Pal at that point of time tried to distinguish the said judgment in the Hamilton’s case (supra) with the judgment of Hope (India) Ltd. (supra) and submitted that there is no inconsistency in the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench in the Hope (India) Ltd case (supra) and in this subsequent decision the Hon’ble Division Bench duly considered the judgment delivered in the Hamilton’s case
n this decision, vide order dated 15.9.2008, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that even a decision of Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Court rendered subsequent to the Tribunal decision can render the said Tribunal decision liable of rectification of mistake apparent from record. In view of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal by the Revenue on account of tax effect, when on similar facts Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s case on tax effect.
Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest Under Section 234A does not arise.
9. Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2003. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained under section 132(1) of the Act. Salient feature of section 132(1)
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
Therefore, there cannot be a formula which had no connection with the value of the individual assets and the liabilities. The price was determined that of the business and therefore, there is no question of picking up any portion of such price and charging its capital gains. It appears to us that before transfer of the company, the said company had issued subscribed share capital and the original share certificates
