UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning (Supreme Court)

Held in the context of s. 11AC of the Excise Act (which provides that where any duty of excise has not been .. paid .. by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts ….. or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act … with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) of section 11A, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined) that

(1) “At this stage, we need to examine the recent decision of this Court in Dharamendra Textile (supra). In almost every case relating to penalty, the decision is referred to on behalf of the Revenue as if it laid down that in every case of non-payment or short payment of duty the penalty clause would automatically get attracted and the authority had no discretion in the matter. One of us (Aftab Alam,J.) was a party to the decision in Dharmendra Textile and we see no reason to understand or read that decision in that manner.�

Read more...

Rotork Controls vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

The assessee sold valve actuators. At the time of sale, the assessee provided standard warranty that if the product was defective within the stated period, the product would be rectified or replaced free of charge. For AY 1991-92, the assessee made a provision for warranty at Rs.10,18,800 at the rate of 1.5% of the turnover. As the actual expenditure was only Rs. 5,18,554, the excess provision of Rs.5,00,246 was reversed and only the net provision was claimed. The Tribunal allowed the claim on the basis that the provision had been consistently made and on a realistic manner. The High Court reversed the Tribunal on the basis that the liability was contingent and not allowable u/s 37 (1). HELD, reversing the High Court that:

(1) A provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when: (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event; (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision can be recognized;

Read more...

Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D. K. Gandhi (Supreme Court)

The State Commission, Delhi, held that services rendered by a Lawyer would not come within the ambit of s. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The State Commission held that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.

Read more...

CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain (Bombay High Court)

In view of the retraction of the statement and the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki V/s. UOI 2008 (16) Scale 31, the retracted confession can be relied upon only if there is independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the confession

Read more...

CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

The reliance on UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 and the contention that the law on penalty had “drastically changed� and that penalty becomes “automatically leviable� whenever an addition is made in quantum proceedings which attains finality is “to state the least, absolutely absurd�. S. 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only if there is concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars and not for an unacceptable plea for exemption of tax-liability.

Read more...

Genom Biotech vs. DIT (Bombay High Court)

Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief on the basis of information that one of the three conditions of s. 132 exist. However, it is not the mandate of s. 132 that the reasonable belief recorded by the designated authority must be disclosed to the assessee.

Read more...

ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint (ITAT 5 Member Special Bench)

SCM Creations is not an authority on how s. 80-IA (9) is to be applied because the effect and implementation of above provision was neither raised, nor examined nor decided by the Court. A decision is an authority for the proposition that it decides and not what can logically be deduced there from. A point not raised nor argued at the Bar cannot be said to be the ratio of the decision. Accordingly SCM Creation does not impinge upon the ratio of Rogini Garments.

Read more...

DCIT vs. Citizen Hotels (ITAT Mumbai)

As the assessee had earned tax-free dividend income, s.14A was applicable. The question of determination of the disallowable amount has to be worked out by the AO as per Rule 8D as held the Special Bench judgement in ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 119 TTJ (Mum) (SB) 289. However, the disallowance u/s 14A in the fresh proceedings cannot exceed the original amount disallowed by the AO in the assessment order.

Read more...

Kanbay Software vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

The judgement in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors has to be understood in the correct perspective. It does not make a radical change in the law nor does it affect the basic scheme of s. 271 (1) (c). Even in K P Madhusudanan vs. CIT 251 ITR 99, the assessee’s plea to the effect that ‘revenue was required to prove mens rea of a criminal offence’ before penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed was rejected. Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) has been held to be ‘civil liability’ in contradistinction to prosecution u/s 276C. It is wrong to infer that because the liability is a “civil liability�, it ceases to be penal in character. There is no contradiction in a liability being a civil liability and the same liability being a penal liability as well, though a civil liability cannot certainly be a criminal liability as well. As observed in Om Prakash vs. UOI AIR 1984 SC 1194 @ 1209 “A penalty imposed by the sales tax authorities is a civil liability, though penal in character�.

Read more...

In Re WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd (AAR)

Where the assessee, an Australian company, entered into an agreement with Reliance and it was agreed that the consideration thereof constituted “royalty� but the assessee claimed (i) that the said royalty was “effectively connected� with a permanent establishment (PE) and consequently assessable as business profits, (ii) that the portion of such “profits� as was not “attributable� to the PE was not assessable to tax in India and (iii) that even otherwise the royalty was not assessable to tax in view of Ishikawakima 288 ITR 408 (SC) where it was held that fees for technical services (and royalty) was not assessable to tax u/s 9(1)(vii) (9(1)(vi)) if it was not rendered and utilized in India, HELD:

(i) In order to be “effectively connected�, the PE should be engaged in the performance of royalty generating services. There must be a real and intimate connection and clear co-relation between the services giving rise to royalty and the PE. A connection between the PE and the contract is not enough;

Read more...

Burmah Castrol Plc vs. DIT

A non-resident earning long-term capital gains on transfer of listed securities is entitled to the benefit of the lower tax rate in the proviso to section 112(1) in addition to the benefit granted by the first proviso to s. 48.

Read more...

Mustaq Ahmed vs. DIT (AAR)

Where the income is actually received or has accrued in India, the resort to deeming provision is not warranted and s. 5(2) is sufficient to create a charge in respect of non-resident’s income. Clause (b) to Explanation 1 makes no difference to this position.

Read more...