Case Laws 2014 (7) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Service Tax M/s RIYA TRAVELS & TOURS INDIA (P) LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE Condonation of delay - subject appeal was misplaced by the clerk due to dislocation of office and transfer of assistants - Held that:- delay cannot be condoned for the reason that the appeal papers were misplaced by the clerk in the place of the applicant. The Honble High Court in the case of Shri Bhavani Castings Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam [2011 (4) TMI 1062 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] , held that the mis -placement of the records in the office of the assessee cannot be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. In view of that, we do not find any reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal - Condonation denied. 2014 (7) TMI 201 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Service Tax CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR I Extension of stay granted - Waiver of pre deposit already granted - Held that:- A provisions of Section 35C(2A) enact a sunset period for operation of an order of stay granted and not for the vitality of an order of waiver of pre deposit. Pre deposit is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal. This requirement is enjoined by Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Pre deposit once order (or waived) will operate for the duration of the appeal and is not subject to sunset period. An order granting stay is however, as earlier noticed, is in exercise of inherent power of the Tribunal, not in exercise of a legislated grant of power. It is the stay granted in exercise of such inherent power that is subject to the sunset clause enacted in Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act. Even where no stay is granted by the Tribunal and mere waiver of pre deposit is ordered under Section 35F, such order of waiver of pre deposit would operate as stay all further proceedings for recovery of the adjudicated liability; since parameters for grant of stay and for waiver of pre deposit are in pari materia. Order dated 9.12.2011, granting waiver of pre deposit of penalty (on noticing that the assessed tax demand had been remitted), is a grant of waiver that would operate during pendency of this appeal and the order of waiver is not subject to the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the 1944 Act. Since waiver of pre deposit was alone granted on 21.12.2011, the Respondent shall taken an appropriate decision in conformity with the law declared by the Kerala High Court in Ashoka Rubber Products [1989 (7) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM] - Decided in favour of Revenue. 2014 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Service Tax PAWAN ENGINEERING WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Erection, Commissioning or Installation services - failure to obtain registration - failure to file periodic returns and disclose gross consideration received - failure to remit the due tax - Neither in response to summons issued nor in response to the show cause notice, did the petitioner choose to furnish copies of the several work orders/agreements under which petitioner executed works entrusted to it by L & T Ltd. - Held that:- petitioner failed to cooperate and to meaningfully participate in the adjudication proceedings and thereby disabled rational analysis of all the work orders - no serious infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the adjudicating authority that the petitioner had provided ECIS to L & T Ltd., a taxable service under Section 65 (39a) read with Section 65(105)(zzd) of the Finance Act, 1994. Regarding the challenge on the point of jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raipur - Held that:- in terms of Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the petitioner has opted neither for centralised registration nor for registration at different sites in different States where works were executed were in favour of L & T Ltd. Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Raipur, within the jurisdiction of the Raipur Commissionerate and operates within the domain of that Commissionerate. It is the petitioner who is service provider and not the site manager at the work sites in the various States. We find no warrant, prima facie, to conclude that the Commissioner, Raipur had no jurisdiction. No provision of any statute or of any notification which calls into question the exercise of jurisdiction by the Raipur Commissioner is brought to our notice. - no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to warrant granting waiver of pre deposit in full - stay granted partly. 2014 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Service Tax JA ANAND Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK Penalty u/s 76 & 78 - waiver of penalty u/s 80 - C&F Service - inclusion of reimbursements of expenses - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin reported in [2011 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] held that the service tax provider is to pay service tax on the gross amount. The prior to this decision there were divergent views on the issue. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. In view of the penalties imposed under Section 76 & 78of the Finance Act are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 198 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Service Tax M/s SONIGARA PROMOTERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of service tax - Sec. 65(105) - Construction activity - Held that:- Revenue is demanding service tax in view of the explanation to Sec. 65(105) dated 1.7.2010. before this section came into force, almost 75% of the construction was complete as per the books of accounts - liability as per the explanation is approximately ₹ 29 lakhs and the applicants had already paid more than ₹ 29 lakhs. Hence pre-deposit of the remaining dues is waived and recovery thereof is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted. 2014 (7) TMI 197 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Service Tax M/s MATOSHRI ARTS & SPORTS TRUST Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI Demand is in respect of the amounts which were received as donations - Club & Association service - Held that:- Appellants had not bothered to file reply to the show-cause notices nor appeared before the adjudicating authority in spite of notices issued to them. The contentions of the appellants now raised before us were not before the adjudicating authority. Further in the impugned order, we find that certain amounts were received as ‘activity and maintenance charges. As the appellants had not co-operated with the adjudicating authority, therefore, we find that it is a fit case to impose cost on the appellants - As the impugned order is passed ex-parte and the issue as per the appellants, is settled by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - pre-deposit waived - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Versus CCE, Lucknow CENVAT Credit - Manufacture of exempted goods in partial year - assesee is paying 8% of the value of exempted goods - revenue seeks to reversal for the entire credit - Held that:- It may happen that on one day the appellant may manufacture only dutiable product and on the other they may only manufacture exempted product. Whether in such a scenario, the duty liability of the assessee is required to be assessed based upon day to day basis? The answer would be an emphatic ‘NO’. The periods cannot be segregated in that manner so as to finalize the assessee liability. Accordingly, there is no warrant to do so in terms of the Cenvat credit Rules. It seems that in the present case the amount of 8% was much lower than the amount of credit so availed, thus prompting the revenue to take a reverse stand than the one taken by them in routine i.e. to in 8% of the value of the final product, which in most of the cases is higher than the credit involved - Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed if an assessee manufactures only exempted goods for a part of the year and for the balance year manufactures both exempted and dutiable goods - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 192 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Central Excise COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus COSME PHARMA LTD Denialof CENVAT Credit - Transfer of stock credit - As per Rule 57F (21) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 whether the respondents are entitled to transfer of stock of credit of the dissolved firm taken over by the respondent together with its assets and the liabilities of old firm - Held that:- stock of credit can be transferred - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the transfer of CENVAT credit to the respondent - Following decision of Aar Aay Products [2002 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. [2005 (3) TMI 327 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. - Decided against the revenue. Transfer of credit attributable to the issue of settlement of issue of under-valuation - Held that:- Credit cannot be transferred but there is no doubt that this credit is available in the books of dissolved firm and no provisions of Acts/Rules has been produced by the learned A.R., showing that if any credit available in the statutory records on account of settlement of the issue of under-valuation the credit is not transferable - Decided against Revenue. 2014 (7) TMI 191 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Central Excise TECHNO PACKERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Waiver of pre deposit - cenvat credit - duty paying documents - supplementary invoice - payment of duty due to fraud, suppression of facts etc. - Held that:- M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Pvt. Ltd. issued the invoice after initiation of the proceedings by the central excise authorities. The question is that whether the said invoice would cover under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Rules. Rule 9(1)(b) of the said Rule provides that a manufacturer may avail the credit on the basis of the supplementary invoice except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacture on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Excise Act or the Customs Act, 1962 or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. In the instant case, it is seen that M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Pvt. Ltd. issued the invoice after initiation of the proceedings. In view of that, the applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty. - stay granted partly. 2014 (7) TMI 190 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise M/s MUNCH FOOD PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-I Classification of goods - Chocolate hub - Classification under heading 1905.90 or under heading 1803.00 - Held that:- Chapter heading 1803 covers chocolate in any form heading 1905 covers biscuits. Whether or not containing cocoa. Admittedly, the goods in question are nothing but the biscuits covered by chocolate. As such, it can be safely concluded that the product in question is the preparation of biscuits and properly classifiable under chapter heading of biscuits. Inasmuch as it is not specifically covered by any preceding sub heading of chapter heading 1905, the same would be classifiable under heading 1905.90. We find that issue is covered by precedent decision of the Tribunal. In the case of Nestle (India) Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai reported in [2000 (124) ELT 898 (Tri)], biscuits and waffles covered with chocolate were held classifiable under heading 19.05 irrespective of preparation of chocolate by weight or value. Similarly in the case of Little Star Foods Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad waffles and wafers coated with chocolate were held as falling under chapter 1905 and preparation of chocolate was held as irrelevant. - appellants product chocolate clubs would be properly classifiable under heading 1905.90 - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 189 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise PORRITTS & SPENCER (ASIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI Availment of balance 50% of Cenvat credit - timing of availing the balance credit on capital goods - Interpretation of provisions of Rule 4(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- Revenue is not disputing the availability of the balance fifty per cent Cenvat credit to the appellant after the installation of the capital goods. It is only the question of timing of availment of credit. Admittedly the capital goods were received by the appellant and were under their possession. The said Rule 4(2)(b) uses the expression “possession and use of the manufacture of final products”. Revenue views are that the same should be put to actual use before the availing the credit. We find that the said disputed legal issue was the subject matter of Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad v. Ispat Industries Ltd. - [2013 (3) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] vide which the Revenue’s appeal was rejected. In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble High Court the expressions “possession” and “use” had to be read together and once the goods are received, their actual installation and use may not be insisted upon. As the capital goods were admittedly received by the appellant and were ultimately installed and used in the manufacture of the final product, we are of the view that the appellant was entitled to avail the 50% of credit in the subsequent financial year 2001-2002 - Consequently, no interest is liable to be confirmed against them and no penalty is liable to be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 188 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Central Excise COSMO FILMS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-II Suo moto availing of credit after getting a favorable decision - revenue contended that assessee should have filed a refund application - earlier cenvat credit was denied on the ground that credit is not admissible - Held that:- It is not a situation where any duty was paid on the finished goods by debiting duty from RG-23 part-II account of the appellant and refund of such duty paid was claimed by appellant where department may be anxious to apply the doctrine of unjust enrichment. In that situation taking of suo motu credit on getting a favourable order could be objected by the Revenue. In the present facts of the case that is not the situation and by getting a favourable order appellant has become entitled to Cenvat credit on which there will not be any unjust enrichment. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority to hold that appellant should have restored to refund provisions, as doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted in this case. - there was nothing wrong in taking of suo motu credit after getting favourable orders from CESTAT, when unjust enrichment is not applicable - Following decision of Shyam Textile Mills v. Union of India [2004 (6) TMI 590 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 187 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise M/s. Gossons Air Conditioning Versus CCE, Chandigarh Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - denial of the benefit of Notification No.75/87-CE - Held that:- Commissioner has considered the appellant s plea of duplication and has come to a finding that Annexure D to show cause notice arrived at 630 out of 1060 entries. However, we find that the said annexure D refers to 1312 ACs. As such, we really fail to understand the above observation of the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for arriving at a finding of quantum of air conditioners alleged to have been removed by the assessee, without payment of duty and to assess their duty liability accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 186 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD Valuation of goods - Determination of assessable value of the oils which are being supplied by the appellant to other oil marketing companies - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (2) TMI 357 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held in favour of the assessee. Revenue’s appeal filed against the assessee was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in [2006 (1) TMI 592 - Supreme Court of India]. Another decision, which is in the same appellants case is Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Goa [2008 (4) TMI 632 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - as there are decisions in the appellants own case as also in other cases which stand confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we deem it fit to follow the same - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 185 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Central Excise M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur I CENVAT Credit - Nexus with manufacturing activity - whether during the period from March 2007 to March 2010, they were eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of outdoor catering service for providing canteen facility to the workers in the factory, manpower supply service for maintenance of lawns and green belt around the factory and for maintaining cycle stand for the workers - Held that:- Number of workers in the appellant s factory is more than 250 and the charges for providing canteen facility are not recovered from the workers. The appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act are required to provide canteen facility to the workers for which they have availed the outdoor catering service and hence this service has to be treated as service availed in or in relation to manufacture of final product. As regards, the service of manpower supply for maintaining green belt and lawn, the same has been availed to comply with the directions of Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board under their letter dated 8th January 2008 under which while permitting the discharge of Industrial/Domestic effluents from the factory, the Pollution Control Board has put a condition that 33% of the total area of the factory premises shall be covered by the tree plantation. Since, without maintaining the green belt around the factory, the manufacturing operations would not be allowed, I am of the view the services for maintenance of lawn and green belt have to be treated as services used in or in relation to manufacture of final product or in other words this service has nexus with the manufacture of final product and, hence, would be eligible for Cenvat credit. I find that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhavnagar vs. Nirma Ltd. reported in [2010 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and in the case of JBM Auto System Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai reported in [2011 (7) TMI 412 - CESTAT, CHENNAI]. In view of this, denial of Cenvat credit in respect of the service availed for maintenance of lawn and green belt also not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 184 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Customs AL-GYAS EXPORTS PVT LTD Versus CC (E. P), MUMBAI Confiscation of goods - sugar for exportation - sub-standard quality - Whether the goods were liable for confiscation for violation of provisions of Section 113 (k) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - Held that:- goods can be held liable for confiscation on account of any willful act, negligence or default of the exporter, his agent of employee. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellant has taken proper care before the exportation of the goods. In this circumstance, it cannot be held that the appellants have violated the provisions of Section 113 (k) of the Act. In these circumstances, I hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation and consequently redemption fine and penalty are not imposable - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Customs M/s OM UDYOG Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Denial of refund claim of SAD - Non fulfilment of condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/07-Cus dt.14.7.2007 - Held that:- Invoices did not contain certificate stating no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of Customs Act, 1975 shall be admissible - There was no exception to this in the notification - if there is no such benefit available to the appellant, refund application should be rejected. - Following decision of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Ambay Cements and another [2004 (11) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. CCE [1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 196 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT - VAT and Sales Tax M/s. Iravanshi Builders and Developers Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax Development of residential complexes - Works contract - Whether the activities, with which the revisionist is involved, would attract or not attract the provisions of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005 - Revenue contends that land, upon which, such residential complexes would be constructed belongs to it; it has obtained necessary sanction to construct thereon and that it proposes to sell the constructed area - Held that:- No sooner a sale is effected, the provisions of the Act will become applicable and, accordingly, tax will be levied. Sale has been defined in Sub Section (40) of Section 2 of the Act, which clearly mentions that sale means any transfer of property in goods. Sale of goods being a sine qua non for application of the Act, as clarified in Sub Section (55) of Section 2 of the Act, such sale will include an agreement for carrying out construction of immovable property or commissioning of any immovable property. In other words, a person agreeing with another person to make a construction for a valuable consideration will be selling the construction made by him as goods covered by the Act, but a person, if he sells an immovable property after the same has been constructed, he will not be selling goods attracting the provisions of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, 2005. Matter remanded back to find out what is the object of the business of the revisionist, i.e. whether it is engaged in sale of immovable properties in the form of flats, apartments, etc. or it is undertaking construction of flats, apartments, etc. on behalf of others - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 195 - DELHI HIGH COURT - VAT and Sales Tax Kuchhal Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Trade And Taxes, Delhi Waiver of pre deposit - VATO held that the assessee claimed input tax credit (ITC) on goods purchased by it but had reduced the credit which was claimed after receiving the credit notes from the sellers and cash discount from the selling dealer - Held that:- As is evident from the previous discussion, the assessee has questioned the liability; its appeal on the substantive addition is pending before the VAT Tribunal. Admittedly, it has also deposited 40% of the disputed amount. In the circumstances, further requirement to deposit 20% of the penalty amount would not be warranted as it would place undue restriction on the appellant’s right to be heard in appeal. The direction to deposit 20% of the penalty amount made in the impugned order is hereby set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - VAT and Sales Tax Eltex Super Castings Limited Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore and Another Levy of penalty u/s TNGST - non refund of excess collected to buyers - levy of penalty on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that:- Therefore, when on the one hand the collection of excess tax was on the specific direction of the Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and such excess collection after having been noted was ordered to be refunded was not actually refunded to the revision petitioner, it runs beyond ones comprehension as to whether even in those circum stances, the revision petitioner can be held to have had unjust enrichment of the moneys of its buyers. On the other hand, it will have to be stated that so long as the amount lies with the Department, it would be the responsibility of the Department to implement the order of the refund and only thereafter can expect the concerned assessee to ensure further refund of such amount to the actual buyers. There was no ground made out for imposing penalty under section 22(2) of the Act, on the ground of unjust enrichment on the part of the revision petitioner. - Decided in favor of assessee. Regarding penalty on account of certain omission between return and books of accounts - Held that:- When factual findings relating to the omissions came to be noticed by the assessing authority based on the books of accounts maintained by the revision petitioner and the returns submitted by it, the ultimate conclusion relating to such omissions would be nothing, but deliberate suppression made by the revision petitioner. When once such a conclusion is inevitable, the levy of penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Act, would become imperative. - Decided against the assessee. 2014 (7) TMI 182 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI - Corporate Laws Sanjay Mukim Versus Thermax Ltd. Rejection of registration of transfer - loss of original transfer deeds - Non compliance of relevant documents - Held that:- only ground for refusal of transfer of shares in question in favour of the Petitioner that the signatures of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 do not match with the signatures available on the record of the Company. - It is to be noted that their Identity is not disputed, Furthermore, the Petitioner has filed sufficient documentary evidence to prove the title of the shares-in-questions which has not been controverted by the Respondent Company - respondent company to transfer the shares. Period of limitation in filing the petition - Held thata:- The Petitioner has stated that the Respondent No. 2 despite its letter dated 23/08/2011 did not act Upon the documents submitted to the Company by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 expressing their no objection for transfer of the shares-in-question in favour of the Petitioner, and therefore he was constrained to file the petition. In view of the above, in my opinion, the petition cannot be said as time barred. The said objection is therefore found untenable and is hereby rejected- Decided in favour of Petitioner. 2014 (7) TMI 178 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT - Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Swastik Food Products Deduction u/s 80IB of the Act – Invocation of section 145(3) of the Act – Method of accounting – Held that:- AO can reject the accounts maintained by the assessee if he is not satisfied about their correctness or completeness - the Assessing Officer can reject the method of accounting followed by the assessee if the same is not in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 145 - the AO is authorized to make assessment of total income of the assessee on the basis of “best judgment” and, at the same time, disregard the income declared in the return - the existence of infirmities and discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the assessee was a pre-requisite for invoking the provisions of Section 145 – the AO had merely doubted trading results declared by the assessee - There were no findings as to how the accounts maintained by the assessee were either incomplete or incorrect. The reason advanced was that in the relevant year the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 80IB @ 100% of its profits, whereas, it was not so in the next AY 2004-05 - There appears to be an inherent fallacy in the reasoning because for the AY 2005-06 wherein the assessee was also not eligible for 100% exemption u/s 80IB, the G.P. rate declared was 8.48% - to say that higher G.P. rate declared in the relevant year at 8% was incorrect merely on the basis of low rate declared for the AY 2004-05, was merely based on conjectures and surmises - prima facie, the absence of any adverse remarks by the Special Auditor definitely supports the case of the assessee - The entire action of the AO appears to be based more on suspicion than on ground reality - the accounts of the assessee could have been got reinvestigated but the same could not have been rejected – the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against Revenue. 2014 (7) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Income Tax Vodafone India Limited. Versus The Union of India And Others Stay application u/s 254(2A) - modification of stay order – Claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act - Held that:- petitioner has filed application for extension of stay before the Tribunal and the same is listed for hearing on 4 July 2014.The Tribunal would consider the petitioners application for extension of stay granted earlier. At that point of time the Tribunal would consider all facts and circumstances of the case and decide the extension application for stay filed by the petitioner. At this stage besides modifying the impugned order dated 20 September 2013 doing away with the requirement of depositing ₹ 30 crores, no other order is passed. 2014 (7) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Income Tax The Madras Club Versus Income Tax Officer Stay application – Notice issued u/s 221(1) of the Act – Held that:- The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent and it is pending –the petitioner is directed to move the appellate authority for stay and necessary orders - Since the stay petition is pending before the appellate authority - second respondent is directed to give necessary notice to the petitioner and then pass orders on the stay petition - Till then it is directed that the respondents shall not take any coercive action. 2014 (7) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Income Tax The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Versus M/s. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd. Expenses incurred on issuance of FCCBs – Held that:- The Tribunal was of the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on issue of the bonds was claimed to be deductible being revenue in nature and that was allowed after due verification/examination - the CIT could not have concluded on same material that the FCCBs, in real sense, were equity shares right from the beginning and that the conversion of bonds was only a routine technical compliance as per the Regulations and guidelines - the material does not indicate that conversion is automatic and that unless the option is exercised conversion or the consideration was not permissible - a possible view taken by the AO should not have been termed as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. and are quashed – Decided in favour of Assessee.
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 01:22:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015