|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 668 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 603
Raw hides and skins - entitlement to exemption - Held that:- The law is that "raw hides and skins" and "dressed hides and skins" are different taxable commodities, notwithstanding the fact that they figure in section 14(iii) under one entry as "hides and skins whether in a raw or dressed state". The mere fact that they figure in one entry cannot be taken advantage of by the assessee.
The 1999 letter shows that the Deputy Commissioners have been requested to instruct the assessing officer not to take coercive action on the demands already raised in cases of purchase of raw hides and skins against specific orders of export until final orders are received from Government for waiver to the period up to November 30, 1997. The present case is one which arose before November 30, 1997 and if the assessing officers have been instructed to comply with these instructions and they have been doing so, they may consider extending the same indulgence to the appellant herein, if they so apply.
-
2008 (10) TMI 602
Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for the condonation of delay in filing revision application under section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act have no application to proceedings under section 47 of the Act. We find absolutely no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner based on rule 36(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules.
-
2008 (10) TMI 601
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of stock transfers and consignment dispatches from inter-State sales tax.
2. Reopening of assessments by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.
3. Levy of penalty for alleged concealment of material facts.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption of Stock Transfers and Consignment Dispatches from Inter-State Sales Tax:
The appellant, a Milk Producers' Cooperative Society, claimed exemption for goods transferred to branches and consignment agents in other States, arguing there was no inter-State sale. The appellant provided F form declarations and sale-pattis to support this claim. The assessing authority initially allowed the exemption for most transactions but disallowed a portion due to non-production of F forms. Upon appeal and submission of the required forms, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. However, subsequent inspections revealed that goods were dispatched after receiving full payment from out-of-State buyers, leading the assessing authority to treat these transactions as inter-State sales, resulting in tax levies.
2. Reopening of Assessments by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer:
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued notices to reopen assessments based on new material gathered during inspections. The appellant objected and filed writ petitions, which the High Court directed to be resolved by the concerned authority. Revised assessments were passed, treating the previously exempted transactions as inter-State sales and levying tax and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the revised assessments but set aside the penalties, finding no suppression of turnover.
3. Levy of Penalty for Alleged Concealment of Material Facts:
The assessing authority imposed penalties for alleged concealment of material facts. However, the Tribunal found no suppression of turnover and set aside the penalties. The Tribunal observed that the inter-State movement of goods commenced as per directions from the Federation and after receiving full payment, treating these transactions as inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the CST Act.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu:
The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that acceptance of F form declarations creates a conclusive presumption that the inter-State movement of goods was not a result of sale. The Tribunal, however, did not fully apply this precedent, failing to consider that the acceptance of F forms by the assessing authority precluded reopening the assessments except on grounds of fraud, willful suppression, or misrepresentation. The Tribunal's assumption that all payments were received before dispatch was incorrect, as detailed statements showed a significant proportion of payments were received after dispatch.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed and partly dismissed. The turnover allowed and disallowed for each year were specified, with the refund due to the appellant to be processed expeditiously. The decision emphasized that the reopening of assessments was not justified under the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, as there was no conclusive evidence of willful suppression or fraud. The transactions with consignment agents were not to be treated as inter-State sales, and only the turnover related to stock transfers with pre-received payments was liable to tax under the CST Act.
-
2008 (10) TMI 600
Whether the legal requirements have been complied with by the respondent herein so as to enable him to maintain the complaint petition or not?
Held that:- It may be true that the High Court has not elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter, but the same would not mean that we should remit the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh as we have gone into the question raised by the parties ourselves. Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 599
Denial of promotion - "Good" mentioned in C.R. instead of "Very Good" - Non Communication of adverse entries - Held that:- The entry of 'good' should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. - However, appellant is not entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not worked in the Higher Administrative Grade Group-A, but his retrospective promotion from 28.08.2000 shall be considered for the benefit of re-fixation of his pension and other retrial benefits as per rules - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 598
Whether there exists any relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties? - Held that:- All the three Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding that the complainant has been able to prove his case of grant of a loan. Admittedly the burden of proof shifted to the appellant. Again a finding of fact was arrived at that the appellant had failed to discharge his burden.
No case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 597
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent is entitled to refund of ₹ 10,83,216/- as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal are justified in holding that there was no unjust enrichment even though the respondent removed/cleared the goods without indicating the element of Excise Duty in their sales invoice, contrary to Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that:- Reliance on provisions of Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot carry the case of appellant any further. The said Section requires that every person who is liable to pay duty of excise on any goods shall, at the time of clearance of the goods, prominently indicate in all the documents relating to assessment, sales invoice, etc., the amount of such duty which will form part of the price at which the goods are to be sold. On a plain reading, the phrase “at the time of clearance of the goods” cannot be read to mean removal of goods from the depot to their further destination, but can only mean removal of goods from the manufacturing unit in the first instance. In the facts of the present case, the record reveals, and there is no dispute as to the said fact, that at the time of clearance of the goods, the invoice in question carried the details of excise duty component separately qua the price of the goods manufactured.
In the circumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded can any legal infirmity be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, in absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 596
CENVAT credit - capital goods - job-work - Held that: - It is not the case of appellant-Revenue that even M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited had claimed credit for the same capital goods which were supplied by M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited to respondent-assessee - it is apparent that credit is available to a manufacturer or producer of final product, which means excisable goods manufactured or produced and such credit is for the duty paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory after the prescribed date. Admittedly, the capital goods in question were received in the factory of the respondent-assessee and were used for the purposes of manufacturing final product which is an excisable item - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 595
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the principles of unjust enrichment will not apply to the cases of finalization of provisional assessment prior to the amendment to section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribed in the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the refund claim on the ground that the finalization was done prior to amendment of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 effective from 13-7-2006 and, therefore, the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not be applicable?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal by way of remand despite the admitted position that the respondent had not placed any evidence on record to prove that they had not passed the duty incidence on their customers?
Held that:- In the light of the principles of law enunciated in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2008 (9) TMI 372 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] which squarely applies to the issues raised and questions proposed in the present appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 594
Derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void - Held that:- Transactions in derivatives, fall within the category of "business activity undertaken by the Bank" as they are covered by Section 6(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that if the transaction in question gives rise to a claim by the Bank, of any liability, on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant-Bank may certainly be able to invoke the provisions of Act 51 of 1993.
Therefore derivatives transactions ceased to be purely speculative deals, long time ago. The pricing of the deals, follows a scientific pattern on the basis of Financial Mathematics. Just as Actuaries scientifically determine the value of insurance risks and the premium payable, Financial Mathematicians (or Portfolio Managers) evaluate the price of these derivatives. Hence they cannot be termed as wagers.
The Master circulars A.D.(M.A.Series) 21 and 26 dated 23-12-1994, extracted in paragraph-97 above, expressly permit customers to hedge their receivables and payables against a third currency instead of Indian rupee, subject only to 2 conditions namely (1) that such third currency should be a permitted currency and (2) that it should be actively traded in the market. Swiss Franc satisfies both conditions. Therefore the first ground of attack is unsustainable. Asit is the admitted case of the plaintiff (para 4 of the plaint) that they had export orders to the tune of ₹ 111 crores for the period upto 31-12-2007 and that they had foreign currency loans to the tune of USD 30 million. It is only by showing their foreign currency receivables and payables that the plaintiff entered into the ISDA Master Agreement. Therefore, they cannot now contend that this particular deal alone had no underlying exposure. The Board of Directors of the company cannot feign ignorance of the declaration and risk disclosure statement made by Mr.P.K.Viswanathan, while confirming the deal OPT 727. In such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be heard to contend that the Bank failed to ensure the existence of a risk management policy, after having allowed Mr.P.K.Viswanathan to sign the declaration and risk disclosure statement. It was the fate of the US Dollar, which has brought the plaintiff to the cliff. Therefore the plaintiff which had the benefit of a push, up the ladder in 9 out of 10 deals, cannot duck when it comes to a pull, down the ladder in the remaining 1 deal. Every business venture provides a roller-coaster ride at some point of time or the other and the validity of contracts cannot be judged on the basis of the success or failure of the venture.
Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction restraining the bank from enforcing the contract OPT 727. The suit is maintainable, the application to revoke the leave A.No.1926 of 2008 and the application to reject the plaint A.No.1927 of 2008 are dismissed. The jurisdiction clause contained in the ISDA Master Agreement does not confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Mumbai, by the use of the words "only" or "alone".
-
2008 (10) TMI 593
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 43B for late deposit of employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and employees' Provident Fund (EPF) contributions.
2. Taxation of the amount received from the transfer of the textile dye business, including the treatment of non-compete fees.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance under Section 43B for Late Deposit of ESIC and EPF Contributions:
The first ground of the assessee's appeal concerns the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 63,054 under Section 43B for the late deposit of ESIC and EPF contributions. The Revenue's corresponding ground is against the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 62,52,100 for late payment of EPF and Rs. 50,190 for late payment of ESIC under Section 43B. The Assessing Officer disallowed these amounts as they were paid after the due date under the respective Acts. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed relief for amounts deposited within the grace period of five days but upheld disallowance for payments beyond this period.
The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), noting that the amounts deposited within the grace period were correctly allowed as per the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Shri Ganapathy Mills Company Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 879. However, for amounts paid beyond the grace period, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, citing the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT v. Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 149 (Bom), which held that the amendment to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003, effective from the assessment year 2004-05, did not apply to earlier years. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's grounds on this issue.
2. Taxation of Amount Received from Transfer of Textile Dye Business:
The second issue pertains to the taxation of Rs. 7.016 crores received by the assessee from transferring its textile dye business. The amount was bifurcated into Rs. 5.010 crores for assigning marketing rights and Rs. 2.006 crores as non-compete fees. The assessee claimed these as capital receipts, with Rs. 5 crores offered as long-term capital gain and claimed exemption under Section 54EC due to investment in NABARD bonds. The remaining Rs. 2 crores was claimed as non-taxable capital receipt.
The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as revenue receipt, noting the alignment with the worldwide policy of the parent company, BASF AG. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially agreed with the assessee, treating Rs. 5.010 crores as capital receipt eligible for Section 54EC deduction and Rs. 2.006 crores as part of the consideration for the transfer of the textile dye business, thus taxable under "Capital gains."
The Tribunal examined the agreements and noted that the assessee transferred its business, including marketing rights, customer lists, and employees, but excluded fixed assets and certain current assets. The Tribunal held that the Rs. 5.010 crores received for marketing rights was a capital receipt, aligning with the principle that compensation for the loss of the source of income is capital in nature, as established in CIT v. Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC) and CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 702 (Mad). The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s view that this amount was correctly treated as a capital receipt and the deduction under Section 54EC was valid.
Regarding the Rs. 2.006 crores non-compete fee, the Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s view that it was similar to the marketing rights receipt. The Tribunal noted that non-compete fees are for agreeing not to compete, a negative covenant, and thus a capital receipt not taxable under the head "Capital gains," as supported by CIT v. Narendra D. Desai [2008] 214 CTR (Bom) 190 and CIT v. Shyam Sundar Chhapparia [2008] 305 ITR 181 (MP). The Tribunal emphasized that the amendment to Section 28 by the Finance Act, 2002, effective from April 1, 2003, which made non-compete fees taxable, was not applicable to the assessment year 2001-02.
The Tribunal concluded that the non-compete fee was a capital receipt not liable to tax. Even if hypothetically considered under "Capital gains," the lack of cost of acquisition would prevent taxability, as per CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC). The Tribunal thus accepted the assessee's ground and dismissed the Revenue's ground on this issue.
Order Pronounced on October 22, 2008.
-
2008 (10) TMI 592
Issues Involved:
1. Investment in gold jewelry.
2. Unexplained loans and investments.
3. Legality of block assessments under section 158BD.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Investment in Gold Jewelry:
The search conducted on March 27, 2003, led to the discovery of 5,690 grams of gold jewelry. The Assessing Officer (AO) identified an excess of 828 grams, resulting in an addition of Rs. 4,57,032 to the undisclosed income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed a credit of 500 grams, reducing the unexplained amount to 328 grams. However, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had reconciled the total holdings of gold jewelry among the assessee and his family members, including his married daughter. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the AO for re-examination and proper reconciliation.
2. Unexplained Loans and Investments:
The AO added Rs. 2,28,92,182 to the undisclosed income based on alleged unexplained loans and investments. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, which the Revenue contested. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were recorded in the regular books of account and reflected in the financial statements filed before the search. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that transactions already disclosed in regular books and financial statements cannot be treated as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, rendering the Revenue's appeal on this issue infructuous.
3. Legality of Block Assessments Under Section 158BD:
For the other assessees (Smt. Padmavathy Bafna, Shri Adit Bafna, M/s. Mansi Foundation Ltd., and M/s. Mansi Chog Impex (Chennai) Ltd.), the block assessments were completed under section 158BD. The Tribunal examined the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO, which indicated that the alleged unaccounted income was already recorded in the regular books of account. The Tribunal emphasized that section 158BD requires the AO to be satisfied that undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the one searched. Since the transactions were already disclosed in the regular books, they could not be treated as undisclosed income. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. CIT, which mandates that the AO must record satisfaction based on materials indicating undisclosed income. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the block assessments under section 158BD were bad in law and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, allowing the cross-objections filed by the assessees.
Conclusion:
1. Investment in Gold Jewelry: The issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh determination after proper reconciliation.
2. Unexplained Loans and Investments: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, as the transactions were already disclosed in regular books.
3. Legality of Block Assessments: The Tribunal found the block assessments under section 158BD to be legally unsustainable and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, allowing the assessees' cross-objections.
-
2008 (10) TMI 591
Issues Involved:1. Whether the interest received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 27,94,929 should be taxed as income from other sources. Summary:Issue 1: Taxation of Interest IncomeThe assessee appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision, which upheld the Income-tax Officer's ruling that the interest received by the assessee amounting to Rs. 27,94,929 should be taxed as income from other sources. The assessee-company was setting up a factory and had applied for loans from IDBI. The Assessing Officer noted that the interest received was adjusted against project expenses to be capitalized but charged it to tax based on the Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this assessment, relying on the decisions in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC). The Tribunal, in a previous appeal, had set aside the assessment order with directions to re-examine the issue. The Assessing Officer, upon re-examination, concluded that keeping the money in fixed deposits was not a precondition for the loan disbursement by IDBI and disallowed the assessee's claim, following the judgments of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. The assessee contended that placing the funds in fixed deposits was a precondition for loan disbursement by IDBI and relied on the judgment in CIT v. Karnal Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 2. However, the Assessing Officer found no additional evidence supporting this claim and treated the interest income as income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that the onus was on the assessee to prove that placing the funds in fixed deposits was a precondition for loan disbursement, which the assessee failed to do. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not deposit the entire equity share capital and unsecured loan in fixed deposits, which contradicted the claim that it was a precondition for loan disbursement. The Tribunal concluded that the facts of the case attracted the application of the judgment in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court, on this 7th day of October, 2008.
-
2008 (10) TMI 590
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trust qualifies for exemption u/s 80G(5)(vi) based on its objects.
2. Taxability of the amount received by the trust through the will of Smt. Khushan Devi.
3. Treatment of amounts received by the trust on account of shop rent, sale of milk, advertisement, and water and electricity charges.
Summary:
1. Exemption u/s 80G(5)(vi) Based on Trust's Objects:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) rejected the renewal of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) on the grounds that the trust was wholly religious. The Tribunal noted that the trust had been granted registration u/s 80G from 1987 to 2007 without any change in its objects. The Tribunal emphasized the rule of consistency, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT and the Delhi High Court's decision in Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society. The Tribunal held that the propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy is not confined to any religion and is more about lifestyle and moral values, thus not making the trust wholly religious.
2. Taxability of Amount Received Through Will:
The CIT held that Rs. 20,55,631 received by the trust from Smt. Khushan Devi's will was taxable as there was no specific direction that it would form part of the corpus. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that u/s 11(1)(a) and 12(1), such amounts are not included in the total income if applied for charitable purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's basis for taxing the amount was unfounded and the condition stipulated in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 80G was satisfied.
3. Treatment of Other Amounts Received:
The CIT found that amounts received from shop rent, sale of milk, advertisement, and water and electricity charges were incorrectly shown as donations, making the trust's books unreliable. The Tribunal found merit in the trust's submission that water and electricity charges were voluntary reimbursements and should be treated as donations. The amounts for rent and advertisement were minor and correctly accounted for, thus not justifying the denial of exemption u/s 80G.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and directed the renewal of registration/exemption u/s 80G for the trust, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
-
2008 (10) TMI 589
Entitlement for exemption u/s 80IB(10) - flats having area measured less than 1500 sq. ft. - AO denied to allow the deduction because the housing project comprised residential units exceeding 1500 sq. ft. - CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) in respect of the residential units with an area of less than 1500 sq. ft. - It was argued on behalf of the assessee that each block of residential units covered by a plan has to be considered as a separate project and deduction is to be allowed on that basis.
HELD THAT:- For enabling the benefit of section 80-IB it is necessary that profits must be derived in the previous year from housing project. The eligibility conditions include, inter alia, that the built-up area should not exceed 1500 sq. ft. in the context of cities other than Delhi and Mumbai. This restriction is applicable to the entire project. If some of the residential units of the project comprised area exceeding the prescribed limit, the benefit as per the language of the section cannot be extended to the project.
The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. The same view is expressed in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT]. In this case the hon'ble apex court has held that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts are to interpret the same in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the provisions of the statute.
The term "project" is nomen generalissimum : It is a term of the most general meaning. It connotes a proposal for undertaking or a scheme for something to be done. The assessee did formulate four such schemes, namely, Agrini, Vajra, Porkudam Phase-I and Phase-II. These four schemes as such were approved by the local authority. A project cannot be approved in piecemeal. Approval is accorded to the entire project. Blocks of residential units are parts of a project and not project by itself. As such a block of residential units cannot be construed to be a separate project. It is therefore evident that the assessee did not comply with the conditions precedent for availing the benefit of section 80-IB(10). We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT (A) and restore the order of the AO on this count.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 588
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Summary:
1. Validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Hyderabad, u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that the order was opposed to law and facts. The Commissioner had set aside the dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer, stating that the note in the order sheet was not a speaking order and did not provide details as to why the penalty was dropped. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, noting that the Assessing Officer's action was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
2. Whether the dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue:
The Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer's note dropping the penalty proceedings was not communicated to the assessee and lacked detailed reasoning. The Commissioner argued that the dropping of penalty proceedings without a proper order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as it resulted in a loss of potential penalty revenue. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Assessing Officer had not conducted a proper enquiry before dropping the penalty and that the Commissioner was justified in exercising his revisionary powers u/s 263. The Tribunal distinguished the case from other cited judgments, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer's action was a final closure of proceedings, unlike the inconclusive notes in the cited cases.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, upholding the Commissioner's order passed u/s 263, and confirmed that the dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The grounds taken by the assessee in all assessment years were rejected.
-
2008 (10) TMI 587
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from letting property as "Income from other sources" versus "Profits and gains of business or profession."
2. Disallowance of recruitment and staff training expenses and salary paid to an employee.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Classification of Income from Letting Property
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing terry towels and other textile materials, leased a property and subsequently granted a license to another entity to use the premises. The income from this license fee was claimed by the assessee as "Income from business or profession." However, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated it as "Income from other sources," citing that the activity of deriving license fees did not constitute a business activity but was merely an act of sub-letting. The AO relied on several judicial decisions to support this view, including:
- CIT v. Lakshmi Co. [1982] 133 ITR 904 (Mad)
- Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 454 (SC)
- CIT v. Supreme Credit Corporation Ltd. [1998] 230 ITR 700 (Cal)
The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the premises were given on a license basis and not sub-let, and relied on the Supreme Court decision in S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700, which held that income from sub-letting could be considered business income if done systematically and in an organized manner. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate such systematic and organized activity. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue authorities' orders, dismissing the assessee's ground.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Recruitment and Staff Training Expenses and Salary
The assessee claimed deductions for expenses incurred on the training and salary of Mr. Naval Kumar, who was sent abroad for training in computer-related studies in printing. The AO disallowed these expenses, arguing that they were not connected to the assessee's business of manufacturing and exporting towels and textiles. The AO considered the expenses personal, benefiting the 99% shareholder of the assessee, and noted that no details of the course pursued by Mr. Naval Kumar were provided. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the AO's disallowance.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that Mr. Naval Kumar was sent abroad for training to develop new markets and technologies for the business, and that similar expenses were allowed in the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee relied on the decision in Sakal Papers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 256, where expenses for a director's daughter's education were allowed as business expenses.
The Departmental representative highlighted several factors:
- The main source of income during the previous year was lease rental, with minimal export sales.
- Mr. Naval Kumar was only 19 years old with no prior experience or knowledge in computer science.
- No evidence was provided to show the necessity of the training for the business.
The Tribunal found that the board resolution indicated a diversification into electronic media and computer-related printing, unrelated to the existing textile business. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations and a lack of evidence connecting the training to the business. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue authorities' disallowance of the expenses, dismissing the assessee's grounds.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the assessee was dismissed in its entirety, with the Tribunal upholding the Revenue authorities' classification of the income from letting property as "Income from other sources" and disallowance of the recruitment and staff training expenses and salary.
-
2008 (10) TMI 586
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Liability for Deduction of Tax at Source from expatriate employees' salaries.
3. Application under Section 154 for rectification of the appellate order.
4. Assessment under Section 44BB and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay:
The assessee's appeals were filed late by 13 years, one month, and 10 days. The delay was attributed to the non-disposal of a rectification application under Section 154 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The assessee argued that the delay should be condoned based on several judicial precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court, which emphasized liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file an appeal within a reasonable time after the decision in the case of Soulier Jean Louis [1996] 220 ITR 220 or after filing an appeal for a subsequent year. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was inordinate and without reasonable cause, thus refusing to condone it.
2. Liability for Deduction of Tax at Source:
The main contention was whether the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source from the salaries paid to expatriate employees. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee's income was computed under Section 44BB, which was not disputed. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that the assessee's belief of not being liable to deduct tax at source was not bona fide. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the assessee had accepted the assessment under Section 44BB and thus was liable to deduct tax at source.
3. Application under Section 154:
The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154, arguing that the CIT(A) did not dispose of ground No. 1 of their appeal, which challenged the assessee being treated as in default under Section 201. The application remained pending for a long time, and the assessee used this as a reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A) had indeed addressed ground No. 1 in his order. Therefore, the pending rectification application did not justify the delay in filing the appeal.
4. Assessment under Section 44BB:
The assessee's income was assessed under Section 44BB, which involves a presumptive taxation scheme for certain non-residents engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used in, the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both found that the assessment under Section 44BB was appropriate and that the assessee was liable for tax deduction at source on the salaries paid to expatriate employees. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given a categorical finding on this issue, and the assessee's failure to appeal this finding in a timely manner further weakened their case.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the inordinate delay in filing without sufficient cause. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on the liability for tax deduction at source and the appropriateness of the assessment under Section 44BB. The pending rectification application under Section 154 did not justify the delay in filing the appeal, and the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of limitation to ensure justice.
-
2008 (10) TMI 585
Issues involved:
1. Assessment of capital gains based on property transfer.
2. Interpretation of the term "gift" in relation to the Income-tax Act and its implications on capital gains computation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessment of capital gains based on property transfer:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Vishakhapatnam pertained to the assessment year 1997-98, where the assessee declared total income including income from property, pension, and capital gains. The dispute arose when the Revenue authorities reopened the assessment, arguing that the computation of income under the head "Capital gains" was incorrect. The assessee sold a property inherited from her husband and claimed the indexed cost of acquisition based on the price her husband acquired the property for in 1980. However, the Assessing Officer calculated the capital gains at a higher amount, considering the cost differently. The assessee contended that the value of the property relinquished by her children should be considered the cost to her, rather than the price paid under the relinquishment deed. This led to a disagreement on the computation of capital gains, resulting in the appeal.
2. Interpretation of the term "gift" in relation to the Income-tax Act:
The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "gift" under section 49 of the Income-tax Act and its implications on the computation of capital gains. The assessee argued that the term "gift" should encompass a broader definition, including deemed gifts as per the Gift-tax Act. The contention was that the property relinquished by the children for a nominal consideration should be valued at the actual value, treating the differential amount as a deemed gift. However, the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority rejected this argument. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, referred to a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which emphasized that the definition of "gift" under the Gift-tax Act cannot be directly applied to interpret the term in the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the decisions of the tax authorities were in line with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and did not warrant any intervention. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal on October 31, 2008.
-
2008 (10) TMI 584
Issues Involved
1. Whether the monies received by the assessee-company from the Indian branch constitute "fees for included services" under Article 12(4) of the India-US treaty.
2. Whether the income arising in India can be taxed under Article 7 as "business profits" in the absence of a permanent establishment in India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
1. Fees for Included Services
Background:
The Revenue contended that the monies received by the assessee-company from the Indian branch of McKinsey and Co. Inc. should be classified as "fees for included services" under Article 12(4) of the India-US treaty. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had been making the same submissions year after year without providing relevant evidence for the assessment year 2003-04. The AO relied on the classification mentioned in the tax deducted at source certificate as "fees for consultancy services" and past treatment of similar income as "fees for included services."
First Appellate Authority:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the payments in question could not be treated as "fees for included services" and since the appellant-companies did not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes arising in India could not be taxed as "business profits" under Article 7.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished any evidence relevant to the assessment year 2003-04 before the AO. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof initially lies with the Revenue to show that the income is taxable under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). However, when the assessee fails to provide information exclusively in its possession, an adverse inference can be drawn against it.
The Tribunal rejected the argument that the nature of services rendered by McKinsey and Co. Inc. is universally known and should be accepted without specific evidence for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's reliance on a model email from 1997 and other correspondence from different years was insufficient to establish the nature of services for the assessment year 2003-04.
The Tribunal concluded that the services in question could be classified as "included services" due to the lack of specific evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the AO for fresh adjudication and directed the assessee to furnish relevant documentary evidence.
2. Business Profits and Permanent Establishment
Background:
The Revenue argued that the income arising in India should be taxed as "business profits" under Article 7 of the India-US treaty, even though the assessee did not have a permanent establishment in India.
First Appellate Authority:
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled that since the appellant-companies did not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes arising in India could not be taxed as "business profits" under Article 7.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal did not specifically address the issue of "business profits" under Article 7, as the primary focus was on whether the fees received constituted "fees for included services." However, the Tribunal implicitly upheld the first appellate authority's view by directing the AO to verify the nature of services and apply the legal propositions laid down in earlier years if the facts were identical.
Conclusion
The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide documentary evidence to demonstrate the nature of services rendered. The AO was instructed to verify if the facts of the assessment year 2003-04 were identical to those of earlier years and apply the legal propositions accordingly. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
