the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short deduction of TDS is not mandatory and is not leviable automatically.

there was no intention on the part of the respondent assessee to evade any payment of duty. It is only because of stringent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that penalty could not be levied under Rule 25 of the Rules.

Service Tax: credit of Service Tax paid on Mobile Phone service is allowable to a manufacturer.

Rule 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors annual capacity Determination Rules, 1998-the law has now been settled by the Apex Court holding that the length of galleries having no fan or radiator attached to it cannot be taken into consideration while determining the number of chambers.

The Petitioner Danny Denzongpa is an Indian National of Sikkimese origin . The Petitioner’s profession is acting in flims The Petitioner is seeking certain benefits which have been conferred on account of insertion of Section 10(26 AAA) by the Finance Act, 2008, which has been incorporated with retrospective effect from 1-4-1990. - Once the Commissioner is vested with the power of condonation of delay, then it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to take into consideration the reasons mentioned by the Assessee seeking condonation of delay. wherein a benefit is sought to be given to an assessee that too with retrospective effect, a highly technical and pedantic approach is required to be eschewed and approach which furthers the intent and purport of the legislation is required to be adopted.

the dozers were required for the business of extraction and sale of iron ore which was the business of the assessee. How many dozers should be engaged was a question which could be best to be considered by the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that the expenditure was not bonafide and/or it was incurred by way of diversion of profits to a related person or a sister concern of the assessee.

Whether the assessee was required to pay an amount equal to 8% or 10%, as the case may be, of the value of the exempted goods as per rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 as the common input (Hydrochloric Acid) was used for the manufacture of both dutiable goods (Gelatin) and exempted goods (Di-Calcium Phosphate) and the assessee was not maintaining separate accounts for the inputs used in dutiable goods and exempted goods.

Once the salary is paid by the employer after deducting tax at source as per the law prevailing on the date of paying the salary, then any subsequent amendment in law brought about retrospectively cannot require the employer to deduct tax at source for the past period, because the salary for that period has already been paid. Consequently, the employer cannot be made liable for the consequences set out in Section 201 of the Act on account of the retrospective amendment to Section 17(2) of the Act.

Service Tax: Tribunal is justified in allowing abatement to assessee though whereas as per para-31 of circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.7.2005, the procedure prescribed is that a declaration by the service provider, in all such cases, on the consignment note is mandatory.

Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made on account of receipt of Excise Duty Refund when the provisions of section 41(1) read with section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable in the case of the assessee.

Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of excise duty paid by the assessee to the processor on cloth brought from the premises of the processor but not sold was allowable u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act. - Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra shift allowance and addl. depreciation on weighing machine. - The deductions on account of payment of sales-tax, purchase tax and contributions to the provident fund and Employees State Insurance, were rightly held to be allowable by the Tribunal u/s 43B of the Income-tax Act.

Whether the order of the CESTAT meets the statutory requirement of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is deemed to be “Judicial Proceedings” under subsection 3 of section 14 ibid, within the meaning of section 193 and section 128 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? - In the absence of any other material to corroborate the said statement as regards misdeclaration of the quantity of goods, in our view, the view taken by the tribunal can be said to be a plausible view.

AO noticed that the assessee had not offered his income from abroad for the purposes of taxation for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000. The assessee had claimed the residential status as “Resident but not ordinarily resident”. The AO held assessee’s residential status as “Resident and ordinarily resident”. Consequently, AO made additions by bringing his global income under the net of taxation. - the amendment can be held only as substantive in nature and cannot be given retrospective effect. The additions were rightly deleted by the two authorities below.

Service Tax: the assessee had proved that there was reasonable cause for the failure referred to in sections 76 and 78 of the Act and as such the provisions of section 80 of the Act would clearly be attracted and the question of imposing penalty under sections 76 or 78 would not arise.

the assessee had disclosed all relevant particulars as regards retention money. Thus, this is not a case where there is any concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of such income, this is a case where the assessee had made a bona fide claim based on legal perception which in turn was based upon a High Court judgment. Such a bona fide claim cannot be equated with deliberate concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

when it was the case of the petitioner that it was the consistent practice of the Tribunal to grant full waiver in such circumstances. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application for modification of the stay order made by the petitioner.

Whether the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter on the ground that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct in passing the final order in the appeal on merits without mentioning about the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts under Section 35-F of the Act? - Whether the Tribunal is right in remanding the matter directing the first appellate authority to pass orders in terms of Section 35-F of the Act, when the first appellate authority passed orders on merits relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

section 11(4)(A) and section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act are complementary to each other and section 11(4)(A) does not restrict the power under section 11(4) of the Act.

tax effect involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed for filing of appeal by circular issued in the year 2008. - the circular about filing of appeals cannot apply to appeals already filed prior to the date of the circular. The view already taken in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee may require consideration by a larger bench.

proportionate deduction of premium payable on redemption of debentures is admissible during the year. - for computation of special deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax are to be excluded from total turnover.

Service Tax: the Tribunal is justified in allowing interest on delayed refund of Cenvat Credit though the provisions of section 11BB for interest are not applicable to the claimant's case.

Service Tax: unless the nexus is established between the services rendered and the business carried on by the assessee, the benefit of CENVAT credit is not allowable. In the present case, in our opinion, rendering taxable services at the residential colony established by the assessee for the benefit of the employees, is not an activity integrally connected with the business of the assessee and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the services such as repairs, maintenance and civil construction rendered at the residential colony constitutes 'input service' so as to claim credit of service tax paid on such services under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

Tribunal is not justified in reducing the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 from 100% of duty to 25% of duty.

the AO was aware of the existence of four companies with whom the assessee had entered into transaction. Both the orders clearly exposit that the assessing officer was made aware of the situation by the investigation wing and there is no mention that these companies are fictitious companies. Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind. True it is, at that stage, it is not necessary to have the established fact of escapement of income but what is necessary is that there is relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. To elaborate, the conclusive proof is not germane at this stage but the formation of belief must be on the base or foundation or platform of prudence which a reasonable person is required to apply

All the litigating assessees who are in tax arrears belong to one class. Any attempt to carve out further classification with reference to the nature of duty demanded in the pending litigation is not permissible. It will be in tune with KVS Scheme to keep all the litigants in one class to achieve twin objectives of the legislation, (i) the reduction of litigation, and (ii) the realization of revenue. In the circumstances, the impugned order rejecting declaration filed by the petitioners is unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside.

Section 23(1) (a) of the Act states that annual value of the property shall be deemed to be the same for which the property might reasonably be accepted to let from year to year. In a case like this, the AO might ultimately form an opinion that there would be reasonable expectation that the property would fetch higher rent than the contractual rent, even when the contractual rent is more than the annual value fixed by the MCD. The question would be as to whether in such circumstances, he may ignore the annual value fixed by the Municipal authorities and come to a conclusion that the property would reasonably fetch a rent, which is more than the actual rent received? To put it otherwise, can the AO, in such circumstances, take into consideration the notional interest to arrive at the same which the property might reasonably be accepted to let for year to year? If so, the next question would be whether it can be done in all cases or in some glaring cases like the present one where security deposit is not equivalent to six months to three years of rent but completely disproportionate to the actual contractual rent? Even if the notional interest is not to be added, can such a huge interest free security deposit (which does not appear to have any rationale with the agreed rent) be totally ignored while determining the “fair rent” which the property might reasonably be expected to yield? Or else, in a case like this, can it be inferred that the tenant paid part rent by giving interest free deposit and agreed rent is not what reflected in the lease deed, but part of its is hidden in the form of security?

the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 14th December, 1990 and virus of the second proviso appended to paragraph 4(b) of the Notification No.175/86C. E., which was inserted by amendment Notification No.174/89C.E. dated 1st September 1989, contending that the interpretation sought to be placed thereon by the Revenue renders the notification as unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

the rate prescribed under Section 115BB is applicable for the winnings from lottery received by the respondent assessee irrespective of whether it is an income incidental to business or not 

merely because a wrong section is quoted would not make the order illegal as the power of confiscation in the instant case can be traced to clause (e) of Section 113 of the Customs Act.

Court does not find the impugned provision to be in any manner unconstitutional, hence, the question of reading it down to save its constitutional validity does not arise. Besides, the provisions of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB are clear and ambiguous and it is not possible to take two views as to the meaning of the statutory language. Hence, the request to read down the provision also does not merit acceptance. Consequently, the question of directing the respondents to allow reduction of the brought forward losses of Rs.11,67,85,411/- of the petitioner company from the net profit in order to compute book profits under section 115JB of the Act in absence of any unabsorbed depreciation in the assessment year under consideration, also cannot be accepted.

the petitioner submitted a return claiming amongst others, deduction of depreciation of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in respect of high efficiency boiler costing Rs.20,00,00,000/- as it was installed in the latter half of the year at 100%. Since the lease was in the nature of sale and lease back, question of delivery did not arise.  - there is no basis for reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. We, therefore, quash and set aside the notice issued for reopening of the assessment

Service Tax: once the matter has been finalised on merits, the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in the same matter without a provision to that effect in the Act. As per statutory Scheme, only remedy of the department against an alleged erroneous order of adjudicating authority is to invoke power under Section 35E(2) of the Act.