Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.
TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
March 26, 2013
Case Laws in this Newsletter:
Income Tax
Customs
Corporate Laws
Service Tax
Central Excise
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Wealth tax
Indian Laws
Articles
News
Notifications
Highlights / Catch Notes
Income Tax
-
Section 50C would have no application when it was a case of transfer of plot which was stock in trade and the income from such transaction was treated as business income. - AT
-
Tonnage Tax Reserve Account - Sec. 115VT - donation and prior period items cannot be added to the book profit for the purpose of determining the transfer of profit to TTRA - AT
Wealth-tax
-
Valuation - Wealth Tax - The market value is nothing but a price that may be agreed by a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Market price is not a constant figure. - AT
Central Excise
-
There may be mistake in mentioning the Khasra numbers covered by a particular industrial area and, therefore, just because the Khasra number of a unit is not mentioned against a particular industrial area, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to a unit when the unit, without any doubt, is located in the specified industrial area - AT
-
Recovery of Interest – Section 11AB. - no show cause notice is required and hence the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A is inapplicable. - AT
Case Laws:
-
Income Tax
-
2013 (3) TMI 466
Disallowance of proportionate salary to the partners - CIT(A) deleted the addition - as per AO though the assessee had paid FBT yet the disallowance made on the said ground was valid and that the action of the CIT(A) is not valid - Held that:- The appellant has five units in which two units are located in exempted area. The disallowance of the salary by AO allocable to exempt units worked out on the basis of turnover is not acceptable as there was no material to conclude that part of salary paid to partners pertains to exempt units and as such the disallowance is based on surmises and conjectures. AD has no power to allocate expenses arbitrarily as held in the case of DCIT Vs Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd. (2006 (3) TMI 218 - ITAT DELHI-E). Further, in the case of the appellant itself for the AY 2005-06 the disallowance of salary paid to partners was deleted. Without prejudice to the above, the partners to whom the salary of Rs. 24.00 lacs was paid, are assessed to tax and paying tax at 30% and as such there is no loss to revenue - in favour of assessee. Addition proportionately with regard to various expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) disallowed above addition with an observation that the AO has failed to note that the FBT was paid on the major part of the expenses has been paid by the assessee and for the remaining expenses, the AO could not make any claim for disallowance. The CIT(A) further observed that in a case of a firm having a turnover of more than Rs.166 crores and returning an income of Rs.1.42 crores, the issue of making ad hoc disallowance of some expenses without bringing any adverse material on record is not tenable - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 465
Difference in sale price of plots as undisclosed profit - Assessee has returned business income from sale of plots & the sale consideration received by the assessee was less than the guidelines value fixed by the State Govt. for stamp duty for registration of sale deeds - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Finding ourselves in agreement with the CIT (A) that section 50C is not applicable to business profits. AO has not found any mistake in the books of accounts submitted by the assessee. Assessee has further submitted that a number of comparative sales instances and the assessee's returned rate is in the same range. Assessee has also submitted valuation report by the registered valuer. As AO has not brought on record any instances of comparative sales whereby the sale consideration received was more than that reflected by the assessee. In this regard, assessee's counsel reliance upon the Commissioner of Income Tax I Versus M/s. Thiruvengadam Investments Pvt, Ltd [2012 (5) TMI 145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is also germane wherein held that when the property was treated as business asset and not capital asset there was no question of invoking section 50C. Also see C.I.T. vs. Kan Construction & Colonizers P Ltd. (2012 (5) TMI 145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ) held that section 50C would have no application when it was a case of transfer of plot which was stock in trade and the income from such transaction was treated as business income. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 464
Sale of Shares - investment v/s trading transaction - capital gains v/s business income - Held that:- The assessee was engaged in the investment and trading of shares. Assessee was member of National Stock Exchange (NSE). However, the trading membership was surrendered by the assessee and the same has been accepted by the NSE. Thereafter, assessee is making investments in shares and also doing trading in shares out of the stock in trade carried forward from the earlier years. During the year assessee was also purchasing and selling shares through Portfolio Management Scheme also. Thus as most of the shares were from brought forward holding form preceding years which has been accepted as investment in earlier years & the assessee was maintaining separate account for investment as well as stock in trade of the shares. The investment in shares has been shown in financial year 2003-04 and the assessee has declared short term capital gain of such investments over the years. This has been duly accepted by the Revenue over the preceding years. Thus as there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case in the present year with that of earlier years wherein long term capital gain and short term capital gain has been accepted by the department. All shares purchased are delivery basis. The holding period of the shares on which long term capital gain have been declared was more than 12 months and in the cases where short term capital gain has been declared, the holding period varies from few days to 7 to 8 months. Thus CIT(A) is correct in observing that the period of holding of shares and non-receipt of dividend income was not a decisive factor for treatment of particular transactions as investment or trading transaction. One has to see the intention of the person who is doing purchase and sale of shares. Also Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15.6.2007 issued by the CBDT mentions that a person can have two portfolios, one for investment purposes and another for trading purposes with no time limit prescribed for holding a share to determine whether the shares were held for investment or stock in trade. See Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Purohit 2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, Income tax Officer, Ward 33(4), New Delhi Versus Rohit Anand [2009 (7) TMI 901 - ITAT DELHI] - CIT(A) was correct to held that assessee was making investments in shares and also doing trading in shares out of the stock in trade carried forward from the earlier years - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 463
Reopening of assessment - purchase of designs and drawings treated as revenue are of Capital nature - Held that:- It is evident that in the original assessment, the assessee claimed certain expenses which are in the nature of purchase of designs and drawings to be revenue expenditure and the same were disallowed as such. Now, in the opinion of the AO it is in the nature of capital expenditure. Thus, as per the AO himself, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for assessment. It is a clear case of change of opinion wherein the succeeding AO is of the opinion that the expenditure which was allowed in the original proceedings as revenue expenditure is in the nature of capital expenditure. However, as per the proviso to Section 147, unless there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact, the assessment cannot be reopened. See Atma Ram Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2011 (11) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT) if AO had failed to apply legal provisions/section of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the fault cannot be attributed to the assessee - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 461
Disallowance of Prior period expenses - Demand for the above period was raised during the previous year on account of completion of assessment - Section 43B - Disallowance out of misc. expenses, conveyance and travelling and tea and refreshment expenses. Held that:- We find the assessee has paid the arrears to ESIC relating to different assessment years during the impugned assessment year after the same was quantified by the ESIC authorities in the assessment. Further in view of provisions of section 43B, payment to ESIC is allowable only on actual payment basis, is an allowable expenditure. We set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. Regarding the dissallowances of expenses - Held that:- in absence of complete supporting vouchers the entire expenses cannot be allowed as deduction as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Therefore some disallowance is justified. This ground by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 460
Unexplained share capital - burning loss - Provisions of law u/s. 145 of the Act - Held that:- Although, the Tribunal has not, in so many words, doubted the book results, nor it had rejected the book results, but at the same time, it has taken into consideration overall picture of burning loss of subsequent years and computation of deduction by the audit of percentage of Hard Coke so as to conclude the estimated figure of 30% of burning loss instead of 38.39%. It would not be necessary for the Tribunal to hold in so many terms that it does not accept the book results nor is it required of this Court in the Appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to scrutinize the facts when there is no question of law at all arising, much less a substantial question of law. Estimated figure work out by the Tribunal is broadly based on factual matrix which was presented before it and there is no infirmity that could be pointed out not to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. - Therefore, this Tax Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 459
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Proportionate disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Disallowance under section 43B - Accrued interest income - Held that :- assessee in its letter has given full details of loans and advances. - We find the A.O. has not considered the letter giving all the details and simply mentioned in the order that the assessee company failed to submit any explanation in this regard. Further when the assessee company is having own funds of and borrowed funds of the A.O., in our opinion, was not justified in calculating the interest attributable to capital work in progress only out of the borrowed funds especially. Regarding Disallowance U/s 43B - held that:- Interest payable to banks amounts to only Rs. 2,19,15,545/- out of which of Rs. 79,29,330/- has already been disallowed as part of capital work in progress which I have confirmed above. Hence, only a sum of Rs. 1,39,86,215/- (2,19,15,545-79,29,330) is required to be disallowed u/s 43B. The addition made is thus restricted to Rs. 1,39,86,215/- as against that made at Rs. 1,83,00,000 by the A.O. Interest pertaining to the previous year and is payable as interest on balance sale consideration payable for acquiring a capital asset. The assessee has already commenced its commercial production and there is no dispute on this aspect. The amount in question is allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act. The the provisions of Sec.43-B of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case, since unpaid sale consideration cannot be said to be monies borrowed. Dismiss the appeal by the Revenue. The interest receivable shown against Mangalaya was the outstanding interest of earlier year. As no portion of the impugned sum has accrued during the year, the addition made of is deleted. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 458
Deduction u/s 80IA in - Sec. 115VT of the Income tax Act, 1961. - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA in respect of profits derived from Kakinada Port, Jam Nagar Port and Dahej Port though the assessee did not enter into an agreement for operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility with the Central Govt/State Govt./Local Authority or Statutory Authority - Held that:- It was explained by the assessee to the assessing officer that the assessee company had entered into agreements for operation and maintenance of infrastructure facilities viz., ports with the developers thereof, who in turn had entered into agreements with specified authorities for the purpose of development, operation and maintenance of these ports. Further, under the original agreement between the specified authorities and the developers of the port, the developers had the power to sub contract the operation and maintenance of the port infrastructure as and where necessary. Further the deduction u/s. 80IA already granted to the assessee for the earlier assessment years as decided by the Tribunal by the order cited above, being so, we are not in a position to take any contrary view in this matter in view of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Micro Instruments Co. Ltd. vs. ITO [2008 (7) TMI 981 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein it was held that the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80IB has been allowed in the initial assessment year and also thereafter, claim for such deduction cannot be denied for subsequent years without any justification. - we are of the opinion that claim u/s. 80IA has to be allowed . As regard addition u/s. 115VT of the Income tax Act, 1961 - Held that:- When we compute the book profit in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the Act, the assessee is required to credit the Tonnage Tax Reserve Account as per book profit shown in the audited P & L Account and Balance Sheet. There is no dispute in this case that audited P & L Account shows the book profit at ₹ 7,22,74,369. If there is no dispute regarding this profit shown in the audited P & L Account and Balance Sheet, the Assessing Officer is precluded from tinkering the same. Explanation (1) to subsection (2) of section 115JB also does not provide for increase of the profit shown in the P & L account by an amount like donation or prior period items which is said to be added by the lower authorities. We do not find these two elements i.e., donation and prior period items in the Explanation 1 to subsection (2) of section 115JB of the Act. Being so, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer cannot add these two items to the book profit for the purpose of determining the transfer of profit to Tonnage Tax Reserve Account. We also place reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT(2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 457
Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) - Guidance note for the accounting of finance lease transaction a per ICAI - The assessee had reduced the equalization account from the income earned from the leasing and hire purchase - Held that:- We rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ). The claim of assessee has been disallowed, is a debatable matter and under such circumstances, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c). - Decided against revenue.
-
Customs
-
2013 (3) TMI 455
Stay Petition - Appellant Imported old and used tyres of various sizes claiming classification of goods accordingly. - The goods were inspected by the department who opined status of the tyres are not scrap/waste which resulted in classification of goods under restricted category and accordingly increase of assessable value of goods. After due proceedings the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed re-export of the goods on payment of a redemption fine. Further a penalty was also imposed on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not pass clear orders and held that the appellant has to get clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, GOI and if such clearance is produced the goods may be allowed to be cleared for home consumption. - Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant have filed Appeal for staying the operation of the order. Revenue is aggrieved by the fact Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the other prohibitions while order release of the goods to DTA. Held that:- Thus there are a few issues to be considered in detail before allowing release of the goods. So Tribunal do not consider it proper to pass any order for release of the goods at this stage of considering the stay petition because it will amount to deciding the appeal itself and damage if any caused by release of goods cannot be rectified by imposition of redemption fine. So the appeals are admitted for final hearing.
-
Corporate Laws
-
2013 (3) TMI 462
Petition – u/s 167 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are Directors and major shareholders of the respondent-company. By reason of the disputes and differences between two groups of shareholders which led to initiation of various proceedings pending before the Court and CLB, it has not been possible for the company to hold its AGMs for the financial years ended 31.3.2009 onwards. Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-company is directed to call and hold the Annual General Meetings for the years ended 31.03.2009, 31.03.2020 and 31.03.2011, within 31.08.2012, in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Association, to conduct the ordinary business of the company.
-
Service Tax
-
2013 (3) TMI 471
Writ petition against the order of CESTAT dispensed with the pre-deposit of the amount over and above ₹ 5,00,00,000/- i.e., to the extent of ₹ 21,00,00,000/- deposit was dispensed with and the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit only a sum of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- held that:- the judgment of the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE [2006 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is attracted to the facts of the case, as the Tribunal considering the prima facie nature of the appeal has also examined the financial position of the assessee. - the conduct of the assessee in seeking an order under Section 35F of the Act taking the benefit of an order and further seeking extension of time and later on turning around and filing writ petitions and appeals under Section 35G of the Act is neither bona fide conduct nor one to be encouraged. Pre-deposit is a rule and dispensation is an exception in terms of Section 35G of the Act and in the present case, while on merits substantial relief had been granted by the Tribunal, it is not as though the assessee was not granted any relief at all. - Writ petition dismissed - Against assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 470
Condonation of Delay - held that:- length of delay is immaterial while reason of delay is material as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. We are unable to find the delay is reasonable. The application appear to have abused the process of law and the manner in which approach is made before the appellate forum for remedy that seems only to cause prejudice to interest of revenue by dilatory tactics without any seriousness of the appellant to seek remedy. - Against the assessee
-
2013 (3) TMI 469
GAT services - Benefit of abatement notification No. 32/2004 ST dated 3-12-2014 - held that:- Claim of abetment is certainly subject to certain conditions. It is left open to Revenue to find out from the transporters whether there was any deviation to the fulfilment of condition prescribed in the notification. That has not been done. In this factual circumstance the appellant has suffered service tax of Rs. 4,38,816/-. This suffering is unwarranted. - stay application and appeal allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 468
Compliance of stay order - appellant submits that a writ petition has been filed against the above stay order and an application for stay of operation of the direction for pre-deposit is pending with the Hon'ble High Court. He prays for keeping the matter in abeyance till the said stay application is disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court. - held that:- The learned advocate is unable to tell us as to when the stay application will be taken up by the Hon'ble High Court. In any case, it is not in dispute that our stay order is still in force but yet to be complied with. - appeal dismissed.
-
Central Excise
-
2013 (3) TMI 456
Recovery of Interest – Section 11AB. - Department is of the opinion that assessee while paying the differential amount of duty did not pay the interest on the same as under the provisions of section 11AB. According to the Assesse, the recovery of interest is subject to the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A and since there is no suppression of facts on part of the assessee, only normal limitation period of one year would be available. On the other hand, according to the Department, there is no limitation period for recovery of interest. The department placed reliance on the case based on Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Cream and Others v. Union of India [2012 (1) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court] the Apex Court held that it is only reasonable that period of limitation that applies to a claim for principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon also. Held that:- Interest on a duty liability confirmed under Section 11A(2) or self-ascertained and paid under Section 11A(2B) is by automatic operation of Section 11AB and for recovery of such interest, no show cause notice is required and hence the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A is inapplicable. The interest under Section 11AB on a duty demand confirmed under Section 11A(2) or self-admitted/self-ascertained duty liability under Section 11A(2B) or for delay in payment of duty self-assessed under Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the due date prescribed under Rule 8 ibid is “sum due to the Government”, which is recoverable under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and for which there is no limitation period. The show cause notices issued in these cases, even if invoking Section 11A, have to be treated as mere communication to the assessee for recovery of interest under Section 11.while the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. All stay and Misc. applications also stand disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 454
Demand u/s 11D confirmed regarding the duty paid and collected from the customers on the ground that the applicants should have availed the absolute exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE instead of paying duty and taking credit of duty paid on inputs - Held that:- As the availment of the Notification is subject to the condition, therefore prima facie merit in the contention of the applicants that it is a conditional Notification. Therefore, pre-deposit of the dues is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeals. The stay petitions are allowed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 453
Exemption under notification No. 56/2002-C.E denied - as per department while the industrial area in which the unit is located is specified in the Notification, the Khasra No. 126/68/37-min, in which the unit is located is not specified against Industrial Estate SICOP, but is specified against Industrial Estate SIDCO, Kathua - Held that:- Since this unit is located in industrial Estate SICOP which is specified in the Annexure-II to the notification against Sl. No. (2)(II)(C) (1), just because the Khasra No. in which the unit is located - No. 126/68/37-min is not specified against SICOP industrial Estate but is specified under SIDCO industrial Estate, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied, as the benefit of the notification is available in respect of the eligible goods manufactured and cleared by the units located in the industrial Estates/industrial area as specified in Annexure-II to the notification and this condition stands satisfied by the assessee. There may be mistake in mentioning the Khasra numbers covered by a particular industrial area and, therefore, just because the Khasra number of a unit is not mentioned against a particular industrial area, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to a unit when the unit, without any doubt, is located in the specified industrial area - in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 452
Cenvat Credit – Inputs – Capital Goods - Appellate authority is of the opinion that duty paid by the assesse on ‘’inputs’’ is not entitled to Cenvat credit. - Assesse submits that ‘’inputs’’ namely H.R. Sheets, M.S. Plates and angles were used in fabrication of oil tank which was a capital goods. Tank so fabricated was to serve the purpose of manufacture. That was also not embedded to earth. Held that:- Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] examined Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004 in para 7 of the judgment and also found that the storage tank was capital goods which made the appellant in that case eligible to input credit. For the fact that the oil tank was not embedded to earth, the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit on inputs in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (3) TMI 451
Signing of an appeal - Petition was filed against Commissioner (Appeals) for rejecting the appeal because the same is not signed by the appellant and the name of person signing verification report in Appeal Memorandum was not mentioned in the verification report. - Appellant provides the reliance on the basis of the case of the Sharda Anand Vs. Collector of Customs [1992 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] Held that :- Tribunal held that Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had dismissed their appeal on the two grounds firstly that the stay petition were not signed by the appellant and therefore they were required to make payment of dues adjudged by the lower authority and secondly on the ground that in the appeal papers though the verification report was signed by the appellant but name of the signing officer was not mentioned and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed the order on merit. - Commissioner (appeal) directed to allow the rectification of defect - matter remanded back.
-
2013 (3) TMI 450
Valuation - Trad Discount - Appellant manufacture cotton & acrylic yarn which is chargeable to excise duty. He claimed the deductions on trade discounts which he provides to the customers at the time of sale, which are in terms of the provisions of Section 4, permissible to those deductions, when at the time of clearance they passed to the buyers. - Department contested the deduction on the basis that there is no evidence that the discounts whose deduction was claimed, had been passed on to the customers at the time of clearances. Held that:- In the instant case, the dispute is not regarding admissibility of discounts but regarding payment of duty on the price charged by the Appellant at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore, for permitting the deduction of trade discount, what is material is that it should be known and clearly understood prior to or at the time of removal and it is not necessary that it should be quantified and given to the buyer only at the time of removal. Thus the Department’s contention is that while the trade discounts claimed are admissible the deduction from assessable value is not permissible, as the discounts were not passed on to buyers at the time of clearance but later on by issue of credit notes. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
-
2013 (3) TMI 473
Tax Evasion - no evidence was produced by the assessee inspite of allowing time to produce the record, and on the basis of this, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order reiterating the earlier assessment order - Held that:- While as per the remand order, the Assessing Officer was required to frame a fresh assessment order after complying the remand order passed by the Revisional Authority, but it appears that mechanically assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer. When remand order was very specific in respect of certain directions, then those points ought to have been considered by the Assessing Officer even without production of any material by the assessee. The Assessing Officer ought to have recorded a fresh finding that there was tax evasion by the petitioner, on the basis of some material and documentary evidence tax evasion was found proved. But, in the Assessment Order and Revisional Order we do not find any such finding while it was necessary for the Assessing Officer and Revisional Authority to record such findings. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is find that after narration of the facts, the Revisional Authority because of non-production of any material before it by the petitioners reiterated the earlier order only, while as per directions issued by the Revisional Authority the Assessing Authority was under an obligation to meet out all the directions, but it appears that the Assessing Officer impressed with the fact that no evidence was produced before it by the assessee reiterated the earlier order, while it was under an obligation to decide the matter as directed by the Revisional Authority. When the important and vital issues are not considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order after remand cannot be sustained under the law - the petitioner shall cause appearance before the Assessing Officer on 04.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 472
Input tax credit was denied - stay granted on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the tax due and furnish security for the balance - KVAT Act - assessee placed reliance on the the sixth proviso to Section 6(5) of the KVAT Act, which was given retrospective effect from 01/04/2005 by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Finance Act, 2012 against conditional stay orders - Held that:- A reading of this order shows that the appellate authority has not dealt with any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is on that basis that the conditional order has been passed thus it discloses total non application of mind & need to be set aside. Directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on stay petition within four weeks from today. In the meanwhile, proceedings for collecting 50% of the tax due will stand deferred.
-
Wealth tax
-
2013 (3) TMI 474
Urban land U/s 2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act - Notices u/s. 17 - Sale consideration as the value of their portion of land - Valuation – Held that:- The market value is nothing but a price that may be agreed by a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Market price is not a constant figure. It may fluctuate depending upon various factors such as selling the land for a venture and the urgency for acquiring the land by the purchaser. For the purpose of wealth tax, we have to estimate the market value as on the date of valuation in a notional manner. Therefore, several factors such as the extent of land, location of the land, access to road, future development potentiality, accessability, infrastructure facilities like bus stand, airport, railway station, etc. need to be taken into account while estimating the value as on the valuation date. The guideline value fixed by the State Registration Department for the purpose of registering the document is also one of the factors which need to be taken into account apart from the comparative sale instance in the locality. In our view, the matter of valuation of the impugned property requires reconsideration at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of Ld CIT(A) for all the years under consideration . We also direct the assessees also to properly assist the assessing officer in determining the market value on each of the valuation dates.
-
Indian Laws
-
2013 (3) TMI 467
Complaint has been made under section 18 of the RTI Act aggrieved with the alleged misconduct of the CPIO and deemed CPIO of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“CESTAT”). - The Complainant in his RTI Application had sought certain information in relation to the CESTAT inquiry committee appointed by the Hon’ble President CESTAT. Held that:- It appears that the CPIO, CESTAT and the Registrar, CESTAT need not be penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act, given the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The CPIO as well as the Registrar, CESTAT, in view of the Commission, did not act with mala fide intent or ulterior motive and were perhaps under the mistake of law, especially given the fact that the President, CESTAT being the administrative head of CESTAT had issued certain directions which were binding on the CPIO and the Registrar, CESTAT otherwise. The confusion was perhaps created since the administrative directions issued to the CPIO were conflicting with his statutory duties prescribed under the RTI Act and hence, it will be too harsh to impose penalty on CPIO/Registrar in this case. However, it will be appropriate to warn the CPIO and Deemed CPIO to be careful of making such mistakes and to not be forgetful of the code of judicial propriety which is enshrined in the scheme of the RTI Act.With the above directions, this Complaint is accordingly disposed of.
|
9911796707
