|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1886 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1690
Grant of exemption u/s 12AA denied - objections of CIT(E) that assessee had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab) and therefore he should not have filed the application u/s 12AA - shifting from the applicability of section 10(23C)(iiiab) to section 12AA - object of assessee society for providing education - objection of Ld. CIT(E) that assessee was running a school which has not been mentioned in the byelaws - HELD THAT:- Objections of CIT(E) that assessee had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab) and therefore he should not have filed the application u/s 12AA of the Act has no force as the assessee is free to avail registration under any alternative provisions if more than one alternatives are available and if in accordance with the provisions of law, the assessee is eligible for registration u/s 12A of the Act which it had applied, the Ld. CIT(E) should not have raised this objection and should have examined the contentions for grant of registration.
Second objection of Ld. CIT(E) that assessee when declared as autonomous body should have changed the objects and Memorandum of Association also do not have any force as the facts and circumstances of society and constitutions of members remained same and objects of the society also remained same and the only purpose of declaring the society as autonomous body was that it should be run as an autonomous body in line with the rules laid down by All India Council of Technical Education. The amendment in the byelaws of society has nothing to do with the objects of society which undoubtedly are charitable in nature.
As regards the objection of CIT(E) that assessee was running a school which has not been mentioned in the byelaws, we find that the objects of the society as contained in the Memorandum of Association placed at P.B. page 6 to 10 are to provide for instruction and research in such branches of Engineering and Technology as the College may think fit and for the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge in such branches. The object clause noted above is for providing education and education does include running of school also.
In fact in accordance with the instructions of Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Govt. of Punjab vide notification dated 12.02.2009 had accorded its sanction to establish new multi disciplinary academy and such multi disciplinary academies were also required to provide 10+2 course to the students also and therefore in accordance with the instructions of Punjab Government, the school was also set up to provide education up to 10+2 level and such school was also registered with Punjab School Education Board. Mere non mentioning of all schools and colleges in the Memorandum of Association does not disentitle the assessee for getting registration u/s 12A
In the present case the CIT(E) has not doubted the objects of the society which undoubtedly are charitable in nature and genuineness of activities of the society has also not been doubted. We direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration to the society u/s 12AA - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1689
Addition u/s 14A read with Rule 8D on account of expenses relatable to earning of tax exempt income - HELD THAT:- No disallowance is attracted u/s 14A in case the assessee has not earned any income not forming part of the total income. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. See WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2009 (8) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], CHEMINVEST LIMITED [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1688
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons for reopening not sought - challenge to the impugned re-open proceedings is on the ground that the materials which were available with the Assessing Officer while completing the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is the sole basis for re-opening and for such reason, re-open cannot be made as it would amount to change of opinion - HELD THAT:- From the papers filed in the typed set of papers, find that the petitioner has not sought for the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. If the petitioner had sought for the reasons, it would have been furnished by the Assessing Officer after which the petitioner can file his objections and a speaking order will have to be passed by the respondent on the objections as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]
There will be a direction to the petitioner to file a representation along with a copy of this order to the respondent and submit the same to the respondent requesting for furnishing reasons for re-opening and on receiving the reasons for re-opening, the petitioner is granted fifteen days time to submit his objections and the respondent on receipt of the objections shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Till such proceedings are finalized, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner
-
2017 (12) TMI 1687
Bogus purchases - CIT(A) disallowing the total purchases at 25% thereby giving relief to the assessee in respect of 75% - HELD THAT:- An identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of N.K. Industries Limited vs. DCIT [2016 (6) TMI 1139 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchase to 25% of the total purchases - we decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition/disallowances to 25% of the bogus purchase. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (12) TMI 1686
Rectification u/s 254 - Disallowance u/s 43B - assessee has collected the said Service Tax and neither included the same in its turnover nor paid it over to the government account as required - petitioner has placed his reliance the decision of Knight Frank (India) Private Limited [2016 (8) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] but Hon'ble Bench has not adjudicated upon the same - Revenue who opposed the assessee's M.P. and sought its rejection on the grounds that the Tribunal in its impugned order for Assessment Year 2014-15 had considered the assessee's submission and adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee
HELD THAT:- Formation of a conclusion on erroneous application of provisions of law to the facts of the case, etc cannot be held to be a 'mistake apparent from the record' warranting rectification by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 254(2). By reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevant provisions of law to the facts of the case, in a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2), the Tribunal would be exercising power of review of its earlier order on merits but not 'rectification of mistake apparent from the record' and such review would certainly be beyond the scope of section 254(2).
In view of the aforesaid decision of MC DOWELL AND COMPANY LTD. [2008 (3) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which is the jurisdictional High Court and which is binding on us, we are of the view that through this miscellaneous petition the assessee is seeking a review of the earlier order of the Tribunal by reconsidering the application of principles laid down by superior Courts to the facts of the case or by reconsidering its findings recorded, or by reconsidering the application of the relevant provisions of law to the facts of the case. Such a course is not permissible under Section 254(2)
-
2017 (12) TMI 1685
Addition u/s 43B - Belated remittance of employees’ contribution of PF & ESI U/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) - revision u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- As decided in EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. AND VICA-VERSA [2016 (9) TMI 1040 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] there is no distinction between employees' and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) then no disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund.
Revision u/s 263 - Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of the A.O. on this aspect merely because he holds a different view on the matter. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the CIT is set aside.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (12) TMI 1684
Taxability of receipts for management services - fees for Technical Services' ('FTS') - India Portuguese Treaty - Most Favoured Nation clause - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in [2016 (3) TMI 964 - ITAT PUNE] vide para 8 in assessment year 2004-05 referring to earlier order in assessment year 2007-08 [2014 (12) TMI 388 - ITAT PUNE] discussing the principle of Most Favoured Nation clause vis-à-vis payment received by the assessee company from its Indian subsidiaries held that the same could not be brought to tax.
We are making reference to the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal but for the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the same. Consequently, we allow the claim of assessee and hold that the receipts for management services provided to the Indian affiliates amounting to ₹ 18.94 crores are not to be taxed in the hands of assessee. The ground of assessee is allowed.
Taxability as dividend - Treaty between India and Sweden - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of payer i.e. Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. in [2017 (6) TMI 1290 - ITAT PUNE] relating to assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 14.06.2017 held that management fees paid to Sandvik AB, Sweden i.e. the assessee before us was income on account of rendering of management services and could not be treated as dividend. Following the same parity of reasoning, we dismiss the alternative stand of the DRP/Assessing Officer in taxing the management service charges in the hands of assessee.
Taxability of receipt of affiliate company as receipt of the assessee - HELD THAT:- we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the invoices raised in this regard and tax the amount in the hands of correct recipient i.e. the assessee or its affiliate company. Undoubtedly, reasonable opportunity of being heard would be granted to the assessee in this regard.
Taxability of receipts for induction and leadership training provided by the assessee as taxable in India as Royalty / FTS - HELD THAT:- The services provided by the assessee are governed by India-Portuguese Treaty and consequently, applying the principle of Most Favoured Nation clause, the payments received by the assessee company from its Indian subsidiary could not be brought to tax in the hands of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1683
TP adjustment - comparable selection for software development services - functinal similarity - need of segmental information - HELD THAT:- Infinite data systems private limited to be excluded on functional dissimilarity
E info chips Bangalore Ltd company is primarily engaged in software development and IT enabled services which is considered as the only one reportable segments and therefore there is no segmental information available with respect to the software development activities as well as IT enabled services. In view of this the above comparable is required to be excluded from the comparability analysis of the software development service segment of the assessee.
Infosys limited has huge brand value, huge turnover, and its "Finacle" Software is a leading product in banking industry. Therefore, making it functionally different and has significant R&D.
Sonata software limited breaches RPT filter adopted by the Ld. transfer pricing officer - reexamine the claim of the assessee of Sonata Software limited not passing the filter of related party transactions
Comparable for market support services - TSR Darashaw Ltd is primarily engaged in provision of share registry and related financial services and therefore, cannot be compared with the Assessee, a captive market support service provider.
Global procurement consultants Ltd - perusing the functional profile of this comparable company, we are of the view that functions performed by this comparable company are comparable with the functions performed by the Assessee. Hence, we reject the argument of the Ld. Authorised Representative of the functional dissimilarity of this comparable.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1682
Eligibility to exemption u/s 11 - exemption u/s 10(23C) - charitable activity or not? - assessee had advanced interest free loan to one Educational Society, which as per AO was a specified person u/s 13(3) - AO held that the assessee was ineligible for exemption since he found that the main object of the assessee was not education but giving loan and advance and building capital - HELD THAT:- In the present case the loan has been given by one society to another having similar objects and both societies are registered u/s 12A. Therefore, we agree with the CIT(Appeals) that the impugned advance did not violate the provisions of section 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act also.
We concur with the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee by giving advance to M/s Baba Amarnath Educational Society had not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) or section 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act and, therefore, there was no reason to deny exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(vi).
We are also in agreement with the assessee that nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to prove that the main object of the assessee actually was giving loans and not providing education.
Even the identical allegation of the Ld.DR vis-a-vis the entire group we find remains unproved since the table relied upon by the Ld.DR in support of its contention reflects only the loan given by the assessee and two other trusts of the group to M/s Baba Amarnath Trust. The same has already been explained by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee as having been given to lend financial support to the said Trust in the initial years of its setting up, which fact has not been controverted by the Revenue. Even otherwise it fails to bring to light how the entire group was involved in creating capital only. Even the reference to the transaction between Shiva Educational Trust and Sachdeva Building Contractors Pvt. Ltd. has no relevance to the issue, since as rightly pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee no disallowance/addition has been made on account of the same
We hold that there was no basis at all for denying exemption to the assessee society u/s 10(23C) (vi) - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (12) TMI 1681
Depreciation claimed on HTM category investments - AO disallowed the claim for depreciation on investments categorized as 'Held To Maturity' securities stating that the RBI guidelines do not allow depreciation to HTM category of investments - HELD THAT:- The assessee-bank had treated securities which are HTM as current assets / stock-in-trade. The value of the current assets / stock-in-trade was calculated at the end of the each financial year on cost or market price whichever is lower. By adopting such valuation of security, the depreciation / appreciation was duly offered for taxation under the Income-tax Act. The bank was consistently adopting the above method of valuation of security as per the RBI Guideline. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years [2011 (5) TMI 988 - ITAT COCHIN] by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Reported [2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT] had held that the depreciation on investment which are `Held to Maturity’ and forming part of stock-in-trade is entitled to claim the same as a deduction. - decided against revenue
-
2017 (12) TMI 1680
TP Adjustment - exclusion of six comparables in the transfer pricing study and arm‟s length price assessment - functional similarity - interest income exemption in view of Section 10A - HELD THAT:- The assessee is engaged primarily in software development, specifically in healthcare claims adjudication and bio-pharmaceutical services.
The functional profile of the comparables, noticed the two authorities, was entirely different because E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd. and Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Ltd. were primarily concerned with technology and software development in contrast of the assessee‟s expertise which was software development services. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the findings in respect of the two comparables, no question of law arises.
Revenue has to ensure the functional similarities and exclude comparison of entities where there are significant dissimilarities as in the case of Accentia Technologies Ltd. As far as the TCS E-Serve Ltd. and TCS E-Serve International Ltd. are concerned, the ITAT was of the opinion that these entities had to be excluded having regard to the established „brand value‟ which drew the profitability upward and secondly, that the merger of the one entity had resulted in distortion of the profit figures.
This Court had recently in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (12) TMI 255 - DELHI HIGH COURT], upheld the identical reasoning. Therefore, no question of law arises with respect to the exclusion of these two comparables.
Having regard to the submissions made and the material on record, especially the ITAT‟s observations that I-Gate Global Solutions Limited‟s functioning is similar to that of the assessee, the appeal deserves to be admitted on that aspect.
Admit the following questions of law arise for consideration:-
i) Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that I-Gate Global Solutions Limited underwent significant change in its profitability in view of the amalgamation undergone, having regard to the report and materials on record and the circumstances of the present case?
(ii) Did the impugned order err in law in holding that any interest income derived by the assessee could be treated as falling under Section 10A of the Act?
-
2017 (12) TMI 1679
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus., as amended - Rejection for the reason that claimant has submitted photocopies of T.R. 6 challans where the date of payment is not available which is mandatory for processing the claim and hence condition No. 2(e)(ii) of the notification has not been met - Held that:- It is evident that they have produced photocopy of bank challans evidencing payment of customs duty, extract from ICEGATE duly certified by Chartered Accountant as proof of payment. This being so, just because in the photocopy of T.R. 6 challan the date of payment is not clear, rejection of the refund claim only on this ground cannot be sustained, especially since the lower authorities very well have confirmed the fact of discharge of duty liability based on other documents submitted by the appellant - Moreover, appellants have not been found wanting in fulfillment of any of other conditions given under para (2) of the N/N. 102/2007-Cus.
In the absence of any other discrepancy or shortcoming, appellants are very much eligible for grant of the refund amount as claimed by them under N/N. 102/2007-Cus. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1678
Maintainability of reference petition - case of petitioner is that the jurisdiction lies only with the Rent Control Authority - whether the proceedings under Section 90 of the Act is without jurisdiction and the same is not maintainable? - Held that:- The issue decided in the case of A. AYYASAMY VERSUS A. PARAMASIVAM AND ORS. [2016 (10) TMI 1147 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that if the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court is excluded by the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on a specified court or tribunal as a matter of public policy such a dispute would not then be capable of resolution by arbitration.
The impugned proceedings issued under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 by the respondents, is without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned summons issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed - petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1677
Long Term Capital Gain - transfer of land as capital contribution to a Limited Liability Partnership by invoking section 50C - capital contribution u/s 45(3) - determination of full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of capital asset - whether section 50C overrides provisions of section 45(3) when document of transfer is registered as per the provisions of Registration Act, 1908? - as stamp duty paid for registration of such document, the value determined by the stamp duty authority shall be replaced as full value of consideration as per the provisions of section 50C - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of provisions of section 45(3) makes it clear that it comes into operation only in special cases of transfer between partnership firm and partners and in such circumstances, a deemed full value of consideration shall be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain as per which the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm shall be taken as full value of consideration. Though the provisions of section 45(3) is not a specific provision overrides the other provisions of the Act, importing a deeming fiction provided in section 50C of the Act cannot be extended to another deeming fiction created by the statute by way of section 45(3) to deal with special cases of transfer.
Since the Act itself is provided for deeming consideration to be adopted for the purpose of section 48 of the Act, another deeming fiction provided by way of section 50C cannot be extended to compute deemed full value of consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset.
We are of the considered view that the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a partner to a firm in which he is or becomes a partner by way of capital contribution, then for the purpose of section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm shall be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of a capital asset. The AO cannot import another deeming fiction created for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration as a result of transfer of a capital asset by importing the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the CIT(A) and delete the addition made towards recomputation of long term capital gain on account of transfer of capital asset into partnership firm.- Decided against revenue
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Assessee has not disallowed expenditure incurred in relation to earn exempt income - HELD THAT:- We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Cheminvest Ltd [2009 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B] has held that where there is no exempt income, disallowance contemplated u/s 14A shall not be worked out. In this case, the fact that the assessee has not earned any exempt income, has not been disputed by the revenue. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was erred in disallowing expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income u/s 14A by invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) of I.T. Rules, 1962. The CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted addition made by the AO. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (12) TMI 1676
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Royalty v/s fee for user rights for the "copyrighted" software - taxability of consideration received for facilitating grant of user rights in off-the-shelf software from wholly owned subsidiaries of the assessee and provision of related support services - Tribunal has misread the decision of Director of Income Tax Vs. Ericsson A.B. [2011 (12) TMI 91 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to hold that the same is distinguishable on facts and non considering the decision of Allianz SE Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax [2012 (5) TMI 179 - ITAT PUNE]
HELD THAT:- The assessee is seeking recalling of the order of Tribunal for the same reasons as was in the case of Reliance Communications Limited before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal[2013 (9) TMI 374 - ITAT MUMBAI]. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has failed to consider the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Allianz SE Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax (supra) and has prima facie misread the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Ericsson A.B. (supra). This is a mistake apparent from record, which needs to be rectified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1675
100% EOU - Refund of customs duty - export final products on debonding - before final exit from 100% EOU, the raw material on which Customs duty was paid used in the final product and such product was exported - Held that:- The appellant had paid the Customs duty on the raw material after in principal permission of de-bonding but before final de-bonding under the EOU scheme. During the such period the appellant remained 100% EOU - As per 100% EOU, if any raw material is used in the export goods, Customs duty is exempted vide Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003.
Though the appellant had paid the duty for the purpose of de-bonding but at the same time when goods manufactured, before the de-bonding, has been exported. Once the final product exported during the status of EOU, raw material used therein should not suffer Customs duty, therefore, whatever Customs duty paid on such raw material liable to be refunded to the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1674
Disallowance of vehicle expenses and miscellaneous expenses - adhoc addition @5% - search and seizure action u/s 132 as carried out by the Investigation wing - HELD THAT:- Vehicle expenses, tea and sundry expenses were supported by bills and vouchers. Admittedly, the burden is upon the assessee to furnish necessary evidence to substantiate the claim. To put an end to the litigation, we deem it appropriate to reduce the addition to ₹ 1 lakh out of ₹ 1,82,609/- sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as the personal use of these expenses cannot be ruled out. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1673
100% EOU - Waiver of pre-deposit confirmed by way of impugned orders - Whether this Tribunal has inherent power to grant interim protection against imposition of such condition of mandatory pre-deposit for hearing the appeal on merits under section 35F of the Act or not? - Held that:- The Hon'ble High Court examined the issue of inherent power of the appellate authority to grant interim protection against imposition of such condition and held the first appellate authority is having power to grant interim protection - the provisions of Rule 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, and Section 35(F) of Central Excise Act, 1944 are pari materia.
Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a view in the case of Super Threading (I) Pvt. Ltd. that an application under section 35F of the Act for waiver of pre-deposit is to be entertained by this Tribunal - thus, Tribunal is having inherent power to grant interim protection to the applicant.
Whether the applicants are having a case for waiver of pre-deposit or not? - difference of opinion - the matter placed before the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to the third member to resolve the issues - Held that:- In view of the majority decision, the applicant is directed to make mandatory pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 within a period of four weeks and to report compliance on 8-1-2018.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1672
Reduced rate of interest - Non-payment of service tax - Real Estate Agent’s service - allegation based on investigation initiated by the officers of DGCEI, Hyderabad Zonal Unit - Held that:- The applicant in his settlement application admitted the entire service tax liability of ₹ 22,53,449/- and paid the same along with interest amounting to ₹ 13,02,901/- - With regard to payment of interest, the Bench observes that the department has not accepted the applicant’s plea for reduced rate of interest on the ground that out of the 5 years period (2011-12 to 2015-16) covered in the notice, applicant’s taxable turnover exceeded rupees sixty lakhs during the year 2013-14, thus making him ineligible for reduced rate of interest at 3% for determination of interest liability.
The Bench observes that in the Finance Act, 2011, the rate of interest leviable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of service tax was increased from 13% to 18%. However vide proviso to Section 75 with effect from 8-4-2011, relief in the form of reduction of 3% interest rate was provided to small service providers whose value of taxable services did not exceed 60 lakh rupees in a financial year - The Bench observes that the wordings “does not exceed sixty lakh rupees during any financial year” clearly conveys the meaning that the taxable turnover of a service provider should not exceed 60 lakh rupees in all the financial years covered in the notice to be eligible for the benefit of reduced interest rate. Hence the Bench is in agreement with the department’s stand on the issue and holds that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of reduced rate of interest inasmuch as out of the impugned period covered in the notice i.e. 2011-12 to 2015-16, applicant’s turnover had exceeded 60 lakh rupees during the financial year 2013-14.
The actual interest liability on the service tax works out to ₹ 13,02,901/- which was also admitted and paid by the applicant at the time of filing Settlement Application. Hence, the Bench holds that the claim for reduced rate of interest made subsequently vide their letter dated 16-6-2017 is without any merits and therefore rejects the same.
Penalty - Held that:- The Bench notes that the applicant had not taken Service Tax Registration and was also not filing ST3 returns during the relevant period and they filed the statutory returns subsequently along with late fee. Non-registration and non-filing of the ST3 returns by the applicant would lead to the conclusion that they have concealed the liability before the assessing authorities and the Bench holds that the applicant is liable for penalty - The Bench also notes that the applicant has made a true and full disclosure of their liability - considering the co-operation extended during the course of proceedings, the Bench is inclined to grant partial immunity from penalty to the applicant.
Prosecution - Held that:- The Bench considers it a fit case for grant of immunity from prosecution to the applicant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1671
Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of time bar - export of goods vide ARE-1’s - the entire Revision Application is based on the premise that the Department did not return the Rebate Claim or issued any deficiency memo to the respondent and, therefore, the resubmission of Rebate Claim on 11-10-2013 must be considered as a fresh filing of Rebate Claim by which the period of rebate claim was already over - Held that:- The Government does not agree with the applicant’s view as it is quite evident from the above facts that withdrawal of the claim took place with the discussion, direction, approval, knowledge or consent with the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a Central Excise Division and after having accepted this fact a technical stand of no communication from the Department cannot be resorted to. A verbal communication from a public authority like Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a division with regards to withdrawal of rebate claim is as good as written communication and if a person from the public has acted as per such communication it is bound to be regarded at the behest of the Department. Such fair dealing should also be maintained for the sake of administrative decency and morality.
Government is of the clear view that the applicant does not have any basis to discard the fact of original filing of Rebate Claim on 30-9-2013 and it fully agrees with the Commissioner (Appeals) that resubmission of the claim on 11-10-2013 is in continuation of the original Rebate Claim only and hence the rebate claims filed by the respondent are not time barred - revision application rejected.
............
|
9911796707
