|
II. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. Nivi Trading Limited Vs. UOI, W.P.C. No. 2314 of 2015, Date of Order: 07.04.2015, High Court of Bombay
Verification of certain details cannot be the basis of reopening assessment u/s 147
The
clear language of section 147 of the IT Act reveals that if the
Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income has escaped
assessment, then, he can resort to such power. Subsection (1) of section
148 of the IT Act enables issuance of notice before the assessment,
reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of the IT Act, but that
is dealing with the service of the notice. The principal condition for
issuance of notice is to be found in section 147 of the IT Act and that
is on the reason to belief that any income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment for any assessment year, then, the Assessing Officer
may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or
reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which
has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the
course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or
the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be.
In the
present case, the Respondents do not state that any income chargeable to
tax has escaped assessment. All that the Revenue desires is
verification of certain details and pertaining to the gift. That is not
founded on the belief that any income which is chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment and hence, such verification is necessary. That
belief is not recorded and which alone would enable the Assessing
Officer to proceed. Thus, the reasons must be founded on the
satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has
escaped assessment. Once that is not to be found, then, we are not in a
position to sustain the impugned notice.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. ACB
India Limited (Formerly M/s Aryan Coal Benefications (P) Ltd.) Vs.
ACIT, I.T.A. No. 615 of 2014, Date of Order: 24.03.2015, High Court of
Delhi
For
the purpose of S. 14A and Rule 8D the average value of investment has
to be computed considering only the investments yielding non-taxable
income.
The
assessee reported tax exempt income of Rs. 18,26,360. The AO added back
Rs. 19,96,242 under Section 14A. While doing so, the AO applied Rule 8D
by taking into consideration the total quantum of interest other than
that invested, under Section 14A in terms of Rule 8D, and arrived at the
said figure after multiplying it with the result of the average value
of investments and over average value of assets derived by him. The
CIT(A) went into the record and found that the amount of investment
attributable to dividend as on 31.3.2008 was Rs. 3,53,26,800, which
constituted less than 1% of the total scheduled funds. He however
accepted the basis of calculation applied by the AO and directed a
disallowance of .05% of the amount determined to be average investment.
The ITAT
to which the revenue appealed, restored the AO’s determination holding
it to be a true calculation in terms of Rule 8D. On appeal by the
assessee HELD by the High Court that the AO, instead of adopting the
average value of investment of which income is not part of the total
income i.e. the value of tax exempt investment, chose to factor in the
total investment itself. Even though the CIT(Appeals) noticed the exact
value of the investment which yielded taxable income, he did not correct
the error but chose to apply his own equity. Given the record that had
to be done so to substitute the figure of `38,61,09,287/- with the
figure of `3,53,26,800/- and thereafter arrive at the exact disallowance
of .05%.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
|
III. Indirect Taxes Case Law:
1. Commissioner
of Central Excise Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd., Civil Appeal
Nos. 3623 -3624 of 2005, Date of Decision: 12.05.2015, Supreme Court of
India
Facts of the case
•
IPCL is engaged in the manufacture of various types of petrochemicals,
falling under Chapter 27 and 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
• One of the products which is manufactured by IPCL is C4 Raffinate.
• The IPCL has been paying 8 per cent duty, as it has been claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000, dated 01.03.2000.
•
The basic contention of department was that the aforesaid notification
exempts liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) as well as other gaseous hydro
carbons and excludes specifically natural gases, ethylene, propylene,
butylene and butadiene.
•
The IPCL have argued that the words "other than" qualify only natural
gases and according to him, if read in this manner, the products which
would fall within the exempted category for payment of concessional rate
of excise duty would be LPG, other gaseous hydro carbons excluding
natural gas, ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held –
Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied upon para 5.5 of CESTAT. The Hon’ble court held
that in the Sl. No. 24 of Notification No. 5/2000, there is no comma
after the words 'gaseous hydrocarbons'. Therefore, the expression "other
than" appearing after the words "gaseous (hydro carbons" and before the
words "natural gas" would qualify only the words "natural gas". In
other words, the following goods are covered by the aforesaid Sl. Nos.
(i) Liquefied petroleum gas and other gaseous hydrocarbons with exclusion of natural gas,
(ii) Ethylene,
(iii) Propylene,
(iv) Butylene and
(v) Butadiene.
Therefore,
even if C-4 Raffinate is treated as Butylene Sl. No. 24 of Notification
No. 6/2000-C.E., would be applicable, specification of butylenes in the
said Sl. No. 24 is not for the purpose of its exclusion, but for the
purpose of its specific enumeration and inclusion.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
|
IV. Company Law & Other Matters:
1. Mrs. Naveen Kataria Vs. M/s Jaypee Greens, Case No. 99 of 2014, Date of Order: 21.05.2015, Competition Commission of India
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
In case
Commission found that conduct of the Opposite Party, emanating from its
dominant position in the relevant market, prima facie amounts to
imposition of unfair terms and conditions on the Informant and other
buyers is anti-competitive in terms of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
The Commission will appoint the Director General (DG) to cause an
investigation into the matter and to complete the investigation within a
period of 60 days from the receipt of this order. DG shall also
investigate the role of the officials/ persons who at the time of such
contravention were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the
business of the Opposite Party.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Ms. Babita Roy Vs. M/s Swadesh Developers and Colonisers ,
Case No. 47 of 2015, Date of Order: 02.07.2015, Competition Commission
of India
Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
In the
absence of dominance of OP-1 in the relevant market, the question of
examination of abuse of dominance does not arise. Accordingly, the
matter is closed under the provisions of section 26(2) of the Act.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now