TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
May 28, 2015
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
Customs
Corporate Laws
Service Tax
Central Excise
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Indian Laws
TMI SMS
Highlights / Catch Notes
-
Income Tax:
Entitlement to deduction under section 80HHBA - sale of scrap - scrap materials come within the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking in the manufacture of certain products - HC
-
Income Tax:
Validity of prima facie conclusions of the Settlement Commission - bogus purchases - The admission of the Assessee's application for settlement causes no prejudice to the Revenue nor does it conclude the matter in favour of Respondent No. 2 - petition of the revenue dismissed - HC
-
Income Tax:
Interest u/s 234B - amendment to section 115JB - The liability to tax although credited retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect. - HC
-
Income Tax:
Disallowance of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - the instant amount of SAD paid in relation to such goods cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration because such goods were still appearing as closing stock in the books of account of the assessee. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Cross-examination - adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Validity of survey - denial of natural justice - the survey could be conducted even prior to insertion of subsection (2A) of section 133A. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Unaccounted cash credit - peak credit theory - additions were made purely based on facts, unless the facts were duly verified by the AO, the addition should not have been deleted. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Eligibility for benefit of section 44BB denied - assessee is very much eligible for the benefit available under sec. 44BB of the Act towards the hire charges of the drilling rig by applying the deemed profit ratio of 10% under the said provisions. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - since the search took place on 04.09.2008 i.e. after first day of June 2007, therefore, penalty if any was leviable that was to be levied u/s 271AAA of the Act but not u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - AT
-
Income Tax:
Exemption u/s 10A - t the foreign exchange gain on packing credit foreign currency loan is not eligible for deduction under section 10A - AT
-
Indian Laws:
Imposition of tax on horseracing / betting - still governed by the Hyderabad Horse Racing and Betting Tax Regulation of 1358 Fasli - High Court worried
-
Service Tax:
CENVAT Credit - input services - whether Packaging Services, Security Services, Telephone Services & Chartered Account Services would be considered as input services for of Lending of trademark to others - Payment of service tax on royalty received as output services - Held No - AT
-
Service Tax:
Refund - not filed in prescribed form and the documents are not submitted alongwith the refund application - The initial refund claim having been filed well within time, the same is required to be considered within limitation - AT
-
Service Tax:
Refund claim - jurisdiction of sanctioning such refund - consignments which were exported were cleared from the Akola factory; the jurisdiction for claiming the refund of service tax paid on such services which are in connection with the export of goods cannot be shifted to their Indore Commissionerate - AT
-
Central Excise:
EOUs/EHTP/STP Units – DTA Clearance - Norms for installation of capital goods and / or use of other goods relaxed - Now facility extended upto the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LoP) - See Notification No. 52/2003-CE
-
Central Excise:
EOUs/EHTP/STP Units – Norms for installation of capital goods and / or use of other goods relaxed - Now facility extended upto the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LoP) - See Notification No. 22/2003-CE
-
Central Excise:
EOUs/EHTP/STP Units – Presence of central excise officer is not required where the capital goods or reject, waste or scrap material are destroyed within the user industry, except gold, silver etc. - mere intimation is sufficient - See Notification No. 22/2003-CE
-
Central Excise:
Stay application - Mandatory pre deposit - Section 35F - if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then he is required to pre-deposit 100% of the excise duty levied on him as he has not filed any waiver application under the old provision before the Tribunal exempting him from making any pre-deposit - HC
Articles
Notifications
Circulars / Instructions / Orders
News
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2015 (5) TMI 830
Unexplained investment under Section 69 - Held that:- Tribunal was fully justified in upholding the conclusion of the lower authorities that the explanation of the appellant in so far as the investment in question was totally unsatisfactory and in such factual circumstances, we do not find any question of law arising consideration of this Court and, in our view, even the questions of law framed by the appellant also disclose only factual issues. - Decided against assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 829
Reopening of assessment - CIT (Appeals) did not offer any opportunity to the assessee to make submissions with respect to the materials obtained from the survey and unilaterally rendered findings - Held that:- Having primarily recorded that the CIT (Appeals)’s order was bad for the reason that he did not follow the procedure prescribed by the law to the condition that reasonable opportunity is to be afforded to the assessee, the ITAT ought not to have followed in the same manner, in appreciating the facts in the first instance as it did. We are conscious that this Court in its ruling in Ericsson (2011 (12) TMI 91 - Delhi High Court) had rendered findings on the question of taxability of the transaction of supply and concluded that the supply contracts did not lead to any inferences that income had arisen or accrued in India. The facts found by this Court also pointed that there was PE. However, that decision has to be seen in the light of the facts available to Court at that time. The question as to what was the material collected during the survey and what are the inferences drawn and whether the question of PE or any other issue would arise, is something this Court ought not to surmise. Thus remit the matter to the CIT (Appeals) who shall give reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in the light of the materials collected during the survey conducted on 22.11.2007 for the assessment years in question i.e. 1999-2000 to 2004-05 - Decided in favour of assesse by way of remand.
-
2015 (5) TMI 828
Share transactions - Capital gain or business income - Held that:- Keeping in view of the fact that the assessee has shown the shares which are declared by him either long term or short term capital gains in the investment portfolio and there is no dispute that the same are being valued at cost and on the share holding of the assessee which are stock-in-trade has been valued either at market rate or costs in trade. We find no justification of the Assessing Officer to treat the capital gains arising out of which are short term as well as long term investments portfolio to treat the same as business income. To begin with motive is something, which is locked in the mind of the person. No direct evidence as regards motive is possible. Motive can be inferred from the conduct of the person concerned but that is bound to remain an inference, which may or may not be correct. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the views expressed both by the CIT and the Tribunal for reasons expressed therein are a possible view. It is, therefore, not open to the revenue to contend that the view taken by the Tribunal is perverse - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 827
Entitlement to deduction under section 80HHBA - sale of scrap - Held that:- As relying on Fenner (India) Ltd. Versus CIT (No. 2) [1998 (4) TMI 67 - MADRAS High Court] the scrap materials come within the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking in the manufacture of certain products such as V-belts, oil seals. O-rings and certain rubber moulded products, etc. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that profits and gains from the sale of scrap materials are eligible to deduction in an amount equal to twenty per cent under section 80HH, inasmuch as such gains or profits are derived from the industrial undertaking and includible in the gross total income of the assessee and the question relatable to the profit on the sale of scrap is thus answered in favour of the assesse. Accrual of interest - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee-company had passed requisite Board Resolutions not to charge interest from aforesaid 3 parties on the advances given by it to them. Therefore, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified to consider that the interest income has accrued to the assessee on the outstanding advances as the assessee has agreed not to charge interest on the outstanding advances before the interest income had accrued to it. - Decided in favour of assesse. Disallowance of registration charges - ITAT deleted disallowance - Held that:- It was essentially a question of fact whether apportionment of the registration charges and the stamp duty had been made by the assessee and the question of fact was answered concurrently in favour of the assessee both by the CIT(A) and the learned Tribunal. The amount allowed to be treated as revenue expenditure pertained to that part of the expenditure, which related to the construction raised by the assessee for the purpose of real estate business.Therefore, the investments made were all in the nature of revenue expenditure - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 826
Validity of prima facie conclusions of the Settlement Commission - bogus purchases - revenue alleges that the disclosure was not full and true - order of the Settlement Commission not declaring the application of the Assessee firm as invalid under section 245D (2C) - Held that:- The Commission has recorded by a majority that disclosure of additional income at this stage appears to be prima facie full and true and at present there is no material to reject the contentions of the second Respondent. However, this would require detailed examination in the subsequent proceedings and therefore, it is left open. We also find that the majority has made separate orders and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. In paras 8 and 9 of its order dated 26th March, 2013, the Commission has recorded distinct conclusions on this aspect. It noted that there is a difference in perception on the requirement of true and full disclosure of income. It does not wish to express a final opinion on the adequacy of disclosure. Thus, the disclosure is not termed to be untrue and incomplete. What is held is whether the disclosure as made is adequate and complete would require detailed examination. A disclosure is termed as true and full but a difference in the perception of the Assessee and the Revenue has been noted. Equally, the Commission did not ignore the reports of the Commissioner as complained. There is a reference to it and the contentions of the Revenue qua them in the order dated 10th May, 2013. Thus, all statutory requirements and conditions are complied with. The admission of the Assessee's application for settlement causes no prejudice to the Revenue nor does it conclude the matter in favour of Respondent No. 2. The dissenting Member, however, concludes that the application is not maintainable for all three assessment years, but at the same time, finds force in the argument of the Commissioner that without the statement of the two bank accounts, it is not possible for the Commission to quantify the additional income as it has a direct bearing on the cash deposits made by the Assessee in the bank accounts. His contrary reasoning in para 7 of the order at pages 86 and 87 has been noted by us above. It is in these circumstances that we do not find the reliance placed by Mr.Chhotaray on the Judgment of the Division Bench to be well placed. The view that we have taken, it is not necessary to make any reference to the Judgments cited by Mr. Mistri or other Judgments outlining the ambit and scope of the powers of the Settlement Commission. Suffice it to hold that we are not inclined to interfere in the prima facie conclusions of the Settlement Commission as they are not vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness or malafides. W.P. dismissed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 825
Loss incurred in business of power generation entitled to deduction u/s 80 IA - whether can be set off against business income from manufacturing unit ignoring the provision of section 80-IA(5)? - Held that:- No reason in our referring to the legislative background and these provisions in further details or considering and interpreting them for the present appeals. Once the statement of facts about which there can be no dispute show that there was no deduction claimed under section 80-IA for the assessment years in question, then, there was no occasion for the Tribunal and equally us to have gone into these questions. In any event, merely because the Tribunal has gone into and considered them, we are not obliged to go into the same given the above admitted factual background. Therefore, by clarifying that as and when this question arises and in relation to the same assessee in future, if the deduction is claimed under section 80- IA for eligible unit, then, it would be open for the Revenue to project all questions and propose them as substantial questions of law. In that event, they can raise all contentions and equally pertaining to the setting off of the said losses and in relation to the eligible section 80- IA unit from the income of the non section 80-IA ineligible unit. NO substantial questions of law - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 823
Disallowance u/s 14A - Tribunal setting aside and restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication by relying on the judgment of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Held that:- The tribunal directed that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the assessing officer. He shall examine the relevant accounts, the nature of term loans and availability of interest free funds with the assessee. After examining all these details and account, and only if some reasonable disallowance can be adopted that should be worked out and in relation to earning of the dividend. The asssesee was also directed to furnish necessary details and working before the assessing officer. Addition u/s.14A r.w. Explanation 1 of section 115JB deleted by ITAT FOR the purpose of computing book profit u/s.115JB - Held that:- Once the accounts are prepared in accordance with Indian Companies Act, 1956, they have been approved by the Registrar of Companies, then, the assessing officer must take those accounts into consideration. If the assessee has not debited any actual expenditure relating to the earning of the exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be imported into the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, even clause (f) of Explanation to section 115JB which refers to those amounts which are debited to the Profit and Loss account, alone can be added to the book profit, cannot apply . Having held that the matter is sent back to the assessing officer for reconsideration and while working out the deduction in terms of section 14A read with Rule-8D, the asssessing officer must take note of clause (f) of Explanation to section 115JB of the I.T. Act, then we do not think that questions 1 and 3 could be entertained. The same clarification as is given in the case of M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 810 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]would govern the present case. The facts and circumstances being identical, we do not think that the appeal should be entertained on question nos.1 and 3 above - Decided against revenue. Interest under section 234B - Held that:- The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi punishment. The liability to tax although credited retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.We do not think that the assessee before us can be called upon to pay interest in terms of section 234B, once the explanation was introduced or brought in with retrospective effect but by Finance Act, 2008. Then, there was no liability to pay interest in terms of this provision. That was because the assessee cannot be termed as defaulter in payment of advance tax. The advance tax computation on the basis of the unamended provision therefore could not have been entertained.- Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 822
Eligibility of Deduction u/s 80IB - profits derived from industrial undertaking on job work contract - whether sub-section (13) of Section 80IA can be made applicable in respect of a claim made by the assessee in terms of Section 80IB? - Held that:- Assuming for a moment that certain clauses of Section 80IA was made applicable by virtue of sub-section(13) of Section 80IB, we find that the said provision is applicable only in respect of sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of Section 80IA and not in relation to sub-sections (4) and (13) of Section 80IA. Therefore, there cannot be any controversy on this issue, as the claim of the respondent/assessee does not fall under Explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of Section 80-IA alone are applicable and not sub-section (4) or (13) of Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80IB on profits derived from industrial undertaking on job work contract is to be allowed - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 821
Transfer pricing adjustment - Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses - Held that:- No detail of the AMP functions performed by the assessee is available on record. Similarly, there is no reference in the order of the TPO to any AMP functions performed by comparables. In fact, no such analysis or comparison has been undertaken by the TPO because of his applying the bright line test for determining the value of the international transaction of AMP expense and then applying the cost plus method for determining its ALP. The ld. AR also failed to draw our attention towards any material divulging the AMP functions performed by the assessee as well as comparables. As such, we are handicapped to determine the ALP of AMP expenses at our end, either in a combined or a separate approach. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the file of the TPO/AO for determining the ALP of the international transaction of AMP spend afresh in accordance with the manner laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile (2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Ex consequenti, the ground raised about the TPO having no jurisdiction to determine the ALP of AMP expenses, is dismissed following the judgment in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile (supra). Disallowance of Advances written off - Held that:- Succinctly, the assessee claimed the above deduction by treating it as bad debts written off. On being called upon to justify the deductibility of the amount, the assessee submitted that it imported certain goods during the financial year under consideration paying Special Additional Duty (SAD). Since the goods in respect of which such amount of SAD was paid became obsolete, the amount of SAD was written off and claimed as deduction. It was stated that the nomenclature of bad debt was inadvertently given, whereas, in fact, this amount was payment of irrecoverable/unadjustable SAD. It was also stated before the DRP that the payment of SAD by any importer is refunded when the goods are further sold. Since the goods in respect of which this SAD was paid, became obsolete and written off in the accounts of subsequent years, the amount of SAD was claimed as deduction in this year. Unconvinced with the assessee’s submissions, the DRP approved the view taken by the AO in making the addition. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the assessee, as an importer, paid SAD and, hence, would have ordinarily become entitled to its refund on further sale. The amount in question represents the payment of SAD on the goods becoming obsolete and incapable of further sale. As such, the amount of SAD on such goods has ceased to be refundable. When the goods become obsolete, the payment of SAD already made assumes the character of a part of the purchase price of the goods. It can be seen from the assessee’s submissions made before the DRP as recorded in para 11.1 of its Direction that the goods became obsolete and were ‘ultimately written off in the books of account in the subsequent years.’ This shows that the instant amount of SAD paid in relation to such goods cannot be claimed as deduction in the year under consideration because such goods were still appearing as closing stock in the books of account of the assessee. As the payment of SAD in such circumstances is nothing, but, a part of the purchase price, the same cannot be separated from the purchase price of goods, to be written off separately in the year in question, when the corresponding goods are still treated as stock-in-trade. We, therefore, approve the view taken by the AO on this issue. This ground fails. Denial of deduction towards Provision for warranty - Held that:- There is no discussion in the assessment order on the assessee’s claim for deduction of warranty provision. No addition has been made by the AO on this score. It can be noticed from the DRP’s direction that the assessee took up this issue before the DRP claiming deduction of ₹ 7,22,50,345/- on account of warranty provision for the year in question. It is clear from para 12.3 of the Direction given by the DRP that the assessee voluntarily disallowed this amount at the time of filing income-tax return. It is not understandable as to under which circumstances the assessee suo motu disallowed the claim at the time of filing of income-tax return and sprang up claiming deduction during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. AR also failed to throw any light on this aspect of the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has held that a warranty provision made by the assessee on the basis of the past experience is allowable as deduction u/s 37. It has further been held that the deduction can be allowed if the provision is made on some rational basis. Since the necessary facts in this regard are not available before us, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for deciding it afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assesse for statistical purposes
-
2015 (5) TMI 820
Remittances made by NIPL to Nokia Corporation for software downloads are 'sums chargeable to Tax' as laid down in S 195 - whether NIPL can be held to be an "assessee in default" for non-deduction of tax thereon as per law - validity of survey - denial of natural justice - Held that:- On examination of the entire scheme of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the plea advanced by ld. counsel for the assessee deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that the term ‘proceeding’, defined u/s 133A, includes the TDS proceedings also. The survey, thus, could be conducted for obtaining information in regard to TDS proceedings also as mandated u/s 133A sub-section (1) clause (iii). We are in agreement with the submission of ld. Spl. counsel that this amendment has been inserted by way of abundant precaution so as to ensure that while carrying out the survey proceedings, for ensuring compliance with TDS provisions, cash and stock is not examined. Further, we find from the case laws relied by ld. Special Counsel that survey was carried out for TDS purposes even prior to introduction of sub-section (2A) to section 133A and Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken cognizance of the same. We, accordingly, hold that the survey could be conducted even prior to insertion of subsection (2A) of section 133A. Authorization to DDIT, Chennai for conducting the survey - Held that:- There is no requirement under this section read with rules for issuing of authorisation. As per proviso to section 133A, the survey can be carried out by the authorities mentioned in the section itself and only if the survey is carried out by an Asstt. Director or a Dy. Director or AO, or tax recovery officer or Inspector of Income-tax, then the approval of the Joint Director or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, is required. In the present case, the DDIT Chennai was authorized by the Addl. Director of Income-tax (Inv.), which was in accordance with the CBDT Notification no. S.O. 1189(E) dated 3-12-2001. Thus it cannot be said that DDIT, Chennai was not duly authorized to carry out the survey. A bare reading of section 133A(1) makes it clear that survey can be carried out at the place where business or profession is carried on irrespective of the fact whether the place of business or profession is separate from its registered office. The object of survey is to gather information in regard to the proceedings under the Act which is enumerated in clauses (i),(ii) & (iii) to section 133A(1), as reproduced above and, therefore the powers cannot be restricted in any manner, particularly when sufficient safeguards have been provided by legislature itself while drafting section 133A, as is evident from bare reading of various clauses of section 133A. Statement u/s 131 could not be recorded because there was no non-cooperation of persons present at the time of survey as is contemplated u/s 133A(6) - Held that:- The assessee has also submitted that the statement of ex-employee Mr. Jintendra Agarwal, auditor, being not present at the time of survey, could not be recorded. In our opinion, this plea deserves to be rejected at the very outset, because once the powers are exercised u/s 131(1A) in order to gather the information, the designated authorities could issue summons to any person. DDIT is one of the designated authority and, therefore, no irregularity/ illegality can be imputed.In view of above discussion, we hold that there was no illegality in carrying out survey and the statements recorded u/s 131 at Chennai were validly recorded. Cross-examination being not provided in respect of various statements used in framing the order u/s 201/201(1A) - held that:- All the statements were duly provided to assessee and during the proceedings before the AO, the assessee never asked for cross-examination. Addition was not made merely on the basis of findings given apropos the secret bank accounts, disbursement made out of such account’s or on the strength of havala entries, by which the bogus commission and trading income said to have been reintroduced in the books of the assessee. These aspects are only secondary, subordinate and were used to buttress the main matter connected with the amount of addition. The violation or otherwise of any rule of natural justice must be a matter of substance not of mere form. Natural justice should always be used for the furtherance of the cause of justice. The palladium of justice requires, that law suits be not protracted, otherwise treat oppression might be done under the colour and pretence of law [interest republica ut sit finis litum]. These loafty principles which are harbinger of justice cannot be used for dragging the justice in the labyrinth. We have already indicated that adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there was no denial of the principles of natural justice. The employees, whose statements were relied by AO, were highly technical persons, controlling the entire manufacturing operations and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that they were not aware of various technicalities of the entire manufacturing process. The replies given by them have not been disputed/ controverted by assessee in any manner. The submission is that questions put during recording of statements were not taken to its logical end. Therefore, taking an holistic view of the entire gamut of proceedings, we are of the opinion that no irregularity has crept in during course of proceedings before AO/ CIT(A) and, therefore, the orders of both the lower authorities are not required to be set aside, as the matter is not required to be restored to AO/ CIT(A) to correct any irregularity. However, keeping in view the submissions of ld. Sr. Counsel, noted above, in order to impart substantial justice to both the parties, we are of the opinion that a supplementary report should be submitted by AO on various issues pointed out by ld. Sr. Counsel in his written submissions placed on record, if necessary, after seeking clarifications from employees
-
2015 (5) TMI 819
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - failure to produce certain primary records exhibiting how much rough diamonds were finally converted into polished diamonds, and how one can establish the quality and size - Held that:- stand of the assessee is that it has been maintaining the books of accounts as per the accounting standard notified by the income tax authorities u/s. 145(2) of the Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer has not pointed out any factual error in the details maintained by it. He might have felt handicapness from those details to deduce the result according to his understanding. But the accounts are audited accounts duly complying all the requirements, the addition is an estimated addition on the basis of estimated yield, therefore, there is an inherent difference of opinion between the result shown by the assessee vis-a-vis ultimately determined. In such situation, assesse cannot be held liable for furnishing inaccurate particulars. In our opinion, if the basic details were not maintained by the assessee and its action put the Assessing Officer against the wall leaving no choice except to reject the book result and estimate the income, then, probably this argument may not be available with the assessee that income has been determined on an estimate basis, therefore, no penalty is imposable on it. But in the present case, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record the facts with this angle. It has not been established that even basic records and the books of accounts were not maintained according to the notified standard of accounting. The Assessing Officer did not point out factual inaccuracy in the details submitted by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 818
Revision u/s 263 - directing AO to treat income from sale of shares as business income instead of income from short term capital gains - Held that:- Perusal of the questionnaire as well as reply given by the assessee exhibits that Assessing Officer has conducted inquiry before accepting the stand of the assessee. In the impugned order, Ld. Commissioner has nowhere pointed out, as to how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. He simply observed that since assessee has earned huge margin on short term investment, therefore, the transaction ought to have been treated as speculative transaction. Even otherwise, the assessee has pointed out that delivery of the shares was taken by it in its Demat account. Speculative transaction means, a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity including stocks and shares is periodically settled, otherwise than by actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scripts. The Ld. CIT had nowhere establishes, as to how, it was speculative transaction. It is merely replacement of the opinion of the Assessing Officer with other possible view. Therefore, in our opinion Ld. Commissioner is not justified to take action u/s. 263. We allow the appeal of assessee and quash the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of IT Act by Ld. CIT. - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 817
Unaccounted cash credit - CIT(A)'s appreciating the fact that the assessee's credit card statements do not show any entry of credit card swiping for cash withdrawals - Uaaccounted credit card swiping for cash withdrawal - peak credit benefit to the assessee on the cash withdrawals from the bank accounts given by CIT(A) = Held that:- It was only during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A), the respondentassessee filed the cash flow statement, wherein the sources for the above are supposed to have been explained. However, the AO on remand report had not accepted the cash flow statement in the absence of evidence filed in support of the cash sources shown in the cash flow statement. Even during the course of remand proceedings, the Ld. AO was not satisfied about the explanation rendered for the sources for cash deposits in the bank and the payments made for credit cards. The Ld. CIT(A) without meeting the objections raised by the AO has simply accepted the explanation tendered by the respondent-assessee and he went on discussing about peak credit theory without discussing as to how the fact situation of the case fits into peak credit theory and we find from the grounds of appeal filed before him that no such ground was raised. The additions were made purely based on facts, unless the facts were duly verified by the AO, the addition should not have been deleted. The CIT(A) in the impugned order had not dealt with the facts of the case, he simply referred to certain case laws governing the peak credit theory which is not the germane to the issue on hand before him. The impugned order gives no reason which would indicate as to why the additions are deleted. The order is bereft of reasons and does not discuss the facts of the case. Therefore, the order suffers from the vice of being an order without reasons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of CCT Vs. Shukla Brothers [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that, recording of reasons is an essential feature of providing justice and in fact is the soul of orders. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Alam Khan [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has summarized the principles for recording reasons. Thus the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Remit the matter back to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication of the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent-assessee. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (5) TMI 816
Eligibility for benefit of section 44BB denied - AO treated the payment received by the assessee from leasing of oil drilling rig as royalty as per Article 12 of India- USA DTAT - Held that:- There is no dispute that the contract entered into by the assessee in India was effectively connected with that PE in India and the dispute as to whether letting out drilling rig, services and facilities by the assessee in connection with prospecting production and extraction of mineral oil under the contract with Pride Foramer as accepted by ONGC is a sub-contract and hence the assessee is not entitled to have benefit of taxability under sec. 44BB of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Louis Drefus Armateures SAS vs. ADIT (2015 (2) TMI 899 - ITAT DELHI). Since both the conditions as pointed out in the case of PGS Geophysical AS vs. ACIT (2014 (7) TMI 723 - DELHI HIGH COURT), i.e.the receipt of the assessee can be taxed under sec. 44BB only if the assessee has a PE in India during the relevant period and the contract entered into by the assessee in India was effectively connected with the PE in India have been fulfilled in the present case, we are of the view that the assessee is very much eligible for the benefit available under sec. 44BB of the Act towards the hire charges of the drilling rig by applying the deemed profit ratio of 10% under the said provisions. It is held accordingly with direction to the Assessing Officer to compute the tax as such by allowing the benefit of the provisions laid down under sec. 44B of the Act - Decided in favour of assesse. Chargeability of interest u/s 234B and 234C - Held that:- As when there was no obligation for advance tax as income received by the assessee was subject to tax deduction at source and tax was also deducted in accordance with order passed u/s 195 of the Act and further that the AO has erred in law by charging surcharge and education cess on income tax rate in excess of the maximum rate of tax prescribed under Article 12 of the India USA Double Tax Avoidance Treaty. These issues are consequential in nature to the issue raised in ground No. 1 adjudicated herein above. These grounds thus do not need independent adjudication - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 815
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- From the aforesaid observation of the AO, it is clear that whatever was added that was the result of investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of the Department. However, the AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act was fully satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and no addition was made in spite of the fact that all the information relating to increase in share capital were furnished by the assessee. So, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed any information or particulars from the department. It is well settled that penalty proceeding and assessment proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings. In such type of cases, there can be many reasons for making the surrender but the surrender itself is not a conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, it is also noticed that the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, for levying the penalty in search cases the Finance Act, 2007 inserted section 271AAA of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2007 which clearly states that no penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of section 271 t shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in Sub-section (1) i.e. the undisclosed income found after the search, the word “shall” used in Sub-section (3) to section 271AAA makes it mandatory, therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable in the present case. Therefore, it can be said that the AO wrongly invoked the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty under said section. In the present case, since the search took place on 04.09.2008 i.e. after first day of June 2007, therefore, penalty if any was leviable that was to be levied u/s 271AAA of the Act but not u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) wrongly upheld the penalty levied by the AO - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 814
Refusal for granting registration u/s 12A(1)(aa) - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that assessee is running educational institution as is apparent from the assessment order of earlier years and moreover the object clause as suggests that assessee is running school for educational purposes. The argument of Ld. D.R. that original constitution needs to be examined with respect to objects clause does not hold much force as A.O. in assessment orders of earlier years has noted that society was running a school. In view of above facts and circumstances and in view of the judgements as noted above, we direct the Commissioner to allow registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The A.O. during assessment proceedings will however be entitled to examine the books of accounts of assessee with a view to examine any violation of the Act and can disallow exemption u/s 11 if anything adverse is found. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (5) TMI 813
Revision u/s 263 - examination of sale of property and genuineness of long term capital gains - Held that:- The details called for by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee and such details were accepted by the Assessing Officer and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a lack of enquiry. There was an enquiry, though it is inadequate and in such circumstances, in view of the above decisions, the Commissioner of Income Tax lacks jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order. Thus, respectfully following the said decisions of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 633 - Delhi High Court] and CIT Vs. Development Bank Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax - Decided in favour of assesse.
-
2015 (5) TMI 812
Disallowance of deduction under section 80IA - sale of carbon credit, TUF interest subsidy receipt and generation loss compensation receipt - Held that:- As relying on case of C.N.V Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2015 (5) TMI 808 - ITAT CHENNAI] we hold that income from carbon credit is capital receipt not exigible to tax and such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. As relying on case of C.N.V Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT [supra] we hold that TUF is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt and not entitled for deduction under section 80IA on such receipt. Respectfully following the said decisions of of C.N.V Textiles Pvt. Ltd [supra] & Magnum Power Generation Ltd. vs DCIT [2010 (5) TMI 605 - ITAT DELHI] we hold that generation loss compensation is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80-IA - Held that:- The business undertaking of the assessee is wind mill power generation/hosiery goods, etc., and it has claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year in question and for the subsequent years as well. Having exercised its option and its losses have been set off already against other income of the business enterprise, the assessee in this appeal falls within the parameters of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. There appears to be no distinction on facts in relation to the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills case (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court). - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (5) TMI 811
Exemption u/s 10A - Treatment to foreign exchange rate gain on packing credit foreign currency loan - income from other sources OR income from business for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A - Held that:- On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we do not find any valid reason to reverse the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the foreign exchange gain on packing credit foreign currency loan is not eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. The case laws relied on by the counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. Decided against assesse. Exclusion of travelling expenditure incurred in foreign currency from the total turnover also while computing deduction under section 10A - Held that:- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the Special Bench decision in the case of ITO Vs. Saksoft Ltd.(2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D), rightly directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the travelling expenditure from total turnover also. Thus, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Excluding 50% of telecommunication expenditure incurred in Indian rupee from the export turnover - Held that:- only if telecommunication charges were incurred in foreign exchange, the same can be excluded fom the export turnover. However, in the instant case, the entire telecommunication were incurred in Indian Rupees and hence requires no exclusion from the export turnover and the Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of California Software Company Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 430 - ITAT MADRAS-A] has confirmed this view. Therefore, the action of the AO is not justified in excluding the said expenditure from the export turnover as it was not incurred in foreign exchange.
-
Customs
-
2015 (5) TMI 836
Duty drawback - Circular No.1/2011-Customs dated 4.11.2011 and Circular No.30/2013-Customs dated 5.8.2013 - Under weighing of goods - Held that:- Circulars require exporter to execute a bond of an amount equal to the value of goods and furnish appropriate security in order to cover the redemption fine and penalty in case goods are found to be liable to confiscation. We have directed the petitioner to furnish bond of 100% value of the goods. Therefore, our order is in consonance with the Circulars issued by the Customs Department - goods of the petitioner shall be released for export expeditiously preferably within a period of one week from the date of copy of this order is produced before respondent No.2 provided the petitioner furnishes bond equal to the amount of seized goods other than cash and bank guarantee. - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 835
Non release of goods - Bank guarantee already furnished - Non adjudication of SCN alleging overvaluation - Held that:- Respondent needs to quickly close the proceedings and adjudicate upon the show cause notice dated 05.11.2013. The petitioner's contention that the bank guarantee has served its purpose, has some merit - respondent is directed to adjudicate upon the show cause notice as expeditiously as possible, though not later than four weeks. While doing so, the concerned authority will also take a decision on the plea with regard to release of the bank guarantee in issue. - an interim reply was filed to the show cause notice dated 05.11.2013, as relied upon documents were not furnished by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent will furnish all documents to the petitioner if, a request is made in that behalf. After documents are supplied, if filing of an additional reply is necessitated, an opportunity for that purpose will be given to the petitioner - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (5) TMI 834
Import of aluminum waste and scrap to manufacture of circles and tubes - Exemption of customs duty - Notification No.12/2012 – Held that:- So far as the circle is concerned, this objection was raised by the Revenue in the very first assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 9.3.2011 which was not accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad by judgment dated 2.9.2011 and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was pleased to allow the appeal of the petitioners. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was no new facts which came into light on the basis of which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad jumped to the conclusion that new facts are emerged and the petitioner is manufacturing circles. When there were already six orders – as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner -, in favour of petitioner passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad as well as by the Assessing Officer, in such situation the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad was not justified in holding that new fact has come into existence over-looking the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad in its earlier judgment dated 2.9.2011. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad cannot be maintained. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
Corporate Laws
-
2015 (5) TMI 833
Application for proposed scheme of Amalgamation - Dispensation of requirement of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors - Held that:- All the equity shareholders / secured creditors or unsecured creditors of transferor company and transferee company have given their consents/no objections in writing to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation. Their consents/no objections have been placed on record. They have been examined and found in order. - Application approved.
-
2015 (5) TMI 832
Application for Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391(2) and 394 read with Section 100 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that:- The Chairpersons of the ordered meetings of the secured and unsecured creditors of the demerged company have filed their reports stating that the meetings were duly convened and re-convened, as directed, and that the Scheme of Arrangement has been approved unanimously by the secured and unsecured creditors of the demerged company, present and voting, in the meetings. No observations from Regional Director. No objection has been received to the Scheme of Arrangement from any other party. Considering the approval accorded by the shareholders and creditors of the petitioner companies to the proposed Scheme of Arrangement and the affidavit filed by the Regional Director, Northern Region, not raising any objection to the proposed Scheme of Arrangement, there appears to be no impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme of Arrangement. - Application approved.
-
Service Tax
-
2015 (5) TMI 842
CENVAT Credit - input services - whether Packaging Services, Security Services, Telephone Services & Chartered Account Services would be considered as input services for of Lending of trademark to others - Payment of service tax on royalty received as output services - Held that:- In the certificate/opinion obtained from Y.J. Trivedi & Co. Patents & Trade Marks Attorney & Advocate, Ahmedabad also no provisions of the Trade Marks Act or any Rules made there under are mentioned under which it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to compulsorily use the Trade Mark himself. Lending its trade mark, getting royalty & paying service tax on the part of appellant should be sufficient to establish that his Trade Mark has been used. Under the present factual matrix it can not be held that packaging Services are availed by the appellant directly for protecting their Trade Mark/Brand Name. Therefore, the packaging Services availed by the appellant has to be considered to have been utilized for making of tea bags and can not be considered to be availed directly or indirectly in maintaining/protection of appellant s Trade Mark. As per Rule 6 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 full credit of Security Services credit is permissible if, the credit of such services is not exclusively used in relation to exempted goods or providing exempted services. According credit of service tax on security services is correctly availed by the appellant So far as credit of Chartered Accounts Services & Telephone Services is concerned, As no separate figures are available for such services it will be appropriate that appellant only takes proportionate value wise credit on such services used commonly in providing trading activity and providing Intellectual Property Right Services and pay the remaining amounts with interest. So far as invokation of extended period is concerned it is observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services. Therefore, extended period will be applicable - However, penalties are waived off. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 841
Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Determination of relevant date for filing refund claim - Held that:- Regarding the relevant date for deciding the refund claim on limitation, the issue is no more res-integra as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arya Exports and Industries (2005 (4) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) has decided the issue and held that date of filing claim should be considered as relevant date even if the same is not filed in prescribed form and the documents are not submitted alongwith the refund application. - The initial refund claim having been filed well within time, the same is required to be considered within limitation. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 840
Refund claim - jurisdiction of sanctioning such refund - Export made from Akola factory - Revenue contends that jurisdiction of sanctioning such refund would arose only at Indore Commissionerate as the documents i.e., export documents were prepared from the registered office of the assessee - Held that:- there is no dispute that the consignments which were exported were cleared from the Akola factory; the jurisdiction for claiming the refund of service tax paid on such services which are in connection with the export of goods cannot be shifted to their Indore Commissionerate as the registered office of the respondent-assessee being at Indore cannot be a reason for shifting the jurisdiction to Indore. It is undisputed that the manufacturing activity has taken place at Akola and falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate at Nagpur. - there is no dispute as to that the respondent is a manufacturer-exporter, a category which is covered under Notification No. 41/2007-ST. - Decided against Revenue.
-
Central Excise
-
2015 (5) TMI 837
Stay application - Mandatory pre deposit - Section 35F - Held that:- During the pendency of proceedings or after the order passed by the adjudicating authority, if the law is amended and a condition of pre-deposit is also amended in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the appellant would have to comply with the provisions as the amended provisions would apply to all the appeals which are filed after coming into force of the amended Act. - appeal of the appellant before the CESTAT would not be maintainable in absence of deposit of an amount equivalent to 7.5% of the confirmed amount of duty liability. The other aspect of the matter is that if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then he is required to pre-deposit 100% of the excise duty levied on him as he has not filed any waiver application under the old provision before the Tribunal exempting him from making any pre-deposit. The Legislature has granted benefit to the assessees by fixing pre-deposit equivalent to 7.5% or 10% of the confirmed amount of duty liability as per the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against Assessee.
-
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
-
2015 (5) TMI 839
Validity of Tribunal's order - Allowing of objection after lapse of 8 months - Where on the expiry of time specified in section 74(7) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 the Commissioner has not exercised either of the options set out in section 74(7)(a) or 74(7)(b), whether the objection pending before the Commissioner shall be deemed to be allowed - Held that:- Since the decision in M/s Behl Constructions (2009 (1) TMI 787 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has ultimately settled the law i.e. the objections cannot automatically deemed to have been allowed if they are not decided within 8 months, the matter is remitted to the first appellate authority/objection hearing authority who shall hear and decide the contentions of the parties after issuing due notice to the parties and granting due liberty in that regard - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 838
Validity of assessment notice issued - Bar of limitation - Section 34 - Held that:- Preconditions for invoking the extended period are that the Commissioner should record reasons to believe that the tax has not been paid and that the reason for non payment of tax should be concealment, omission or failure to disclose full material particulars on the part of the assessee. In the present case no such ‘reason to believe’ has been recorded - it would be a virtually impossible task for the appellate authority to first find and decipher the unknown and unrecorded ‘reasons to believe’ and thereupon decide whether the requisite conditions for invoking the proviso under section 34(1) of the said Act were actually satisfied or not. The issue or question raised would be answered on guess work or mere probabilities as to what the ‘reason to believe’ was. It is for these reasons that the Division Bench held that the “reasons to believe” must be disclosed clearly in the record prior to the issuance of the default assessment notice/order or in the said notice/order itself. - reasons for extending the time for completing the re-assessment proceedings were not the reasons indicated in the proviso to section 34(1) but other purported reasons of pendency of cases, election duty etc. etc. Those purported reasons did not permit the respondent to invoke the extended period of limitation given in the proviso to section 34(1) of the said Act. - Default assessment notice dated 09.07.2014 is time barred and is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
Indian Laws
-
2015 (5) TMI 831
Imposition of tax on horseracing / betting - powers of Commercial Tax Department - Seizure of books of accounts - Scope of Hyderabad Horse Racing and betting Tax Regulation of 1358 F., (for short the Regulations which are framed in the erstwhile Hyderabad State in 1358 Fasli. - Held that:- The petitioner is a licensed book-maker, as defined under Regulation 12(c) of the Regulations. Regulation 16 clearly provides for payment of tax at 12.5% towards betting. As per Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations, all licensed book-makers shall keep the accounts as prescribed and officers permitted by the Government are also empowered to make inspection and take copies of such accounts. As per Regulation 19(2), all monies which a licensed book-maker is liable to make over to the prescribed officer under Section 17, shall be recovered from the licensed book-maker as public demand. Under the Scheme of the Regulations and the Rules made thereunder, if any amounts are withheld by the licensed book-maker, or in the event of suppression of turnover, there is no provision for the assessment of tax recoverable from the book- maker. The Regulations provide that all the monies which a licensed book-maker is liable to make over to the prescribed officer under Section 17, shall be recovered from the licensed book-maker as public demand. But, such recovery can be made only for the demand of tax payable by the petitioner. But, in the absence of any provision for assessment and determination of tax payable by the petitioner-book-maker, respondent does not have any authority or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for recovery of tax from the petitioner. As the levy pertains to betting tax, unless there is specific and definite jurisdiction conferred on the respondent, it is not open to initiate such proceedings and make an assessment by issuing show-cause notice. The officer authorised by the Government is empowered to inspect and take copies of such accounts or any other material from the place other than Race Course area also, when there are allegations of suppression of turnover or illegal retention of collected tax monies. - Decided against appellant.
-
2015 (5) TMI 824
Liability to pay compensation - motor vehicle accident - whether once the vehicle was insured, the Government would not be liable to pay the compensation? - Held that:- As per the evidence placed before the Tribunal, no proof was produced to effect the service of requisition order. The Tribunal on facts found that the requisition order was not served upon the owner. Under these circumstances, if the owner had not paid the amount and the vehicle was under the requisition and in possession of the Government, if the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the Government, such approach on the part of the Tribunal could not be said to be erroneous on the ground sought to be canvassed. - Decided against revenue. Higher amount of compensation awarded - Held that:- In Accounting Year 2005 – 2006, the exemption limit was up to ₹ 1,00,000/- and, therefore, upto ₹ 1,00,000/- there was no question of making any deduction of income tax. So far as the amount of income above ₹ 1,00,000/- i.e. ₹ 1,48,161/-, the tax would be ₹ 48,461/- on the basis of tax slab of 10%. It would be roughly ₹ 4,800/- per year and if multiplier of 14 is considered, the said amount would be ₹ 67,200/- towards deduction of income tax. At the same time, another relevant aspect is that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of estate totaling to ₹ 30,000/-. Thus for the conjoint heads of loss of estate, loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, the amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- was required to be awarded by the Tribunal. If the difference is considered, it is less by ₹ 70,000/-. As against the same, as observed earlier, towards income tax deduction, such amount would come to ₹ 67,00/- and hence, both the aforesaid aspects if considered, ultimately, there will not be any substantial difference in the total amount awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, we find that the amount already awarded by the Tribunal would meet with principle of just compensation and, therefore, we find that on such ground, no interference would be called for and the said contention, therefore, would fail. - Decided against revenue.
|
