TIOL-DDT 1054 · Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Jurisprudentiol–Tomorrow's cases

Depreciation u/s 32 - lease vs financial transactions - any benefit allowed by AO cannot be taken back by tribunal; however, second lease transaction found to be sham on ground that sub-lease date preceded lease date: Apex Court

FOR Revenue, confronting lease transaction vs financial transaction is a regular affair. It is often the assessee who succeeds. But this time Revenue has largely succeeded in proving that the lease transaction was a sham and the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. This was regarding the second transaction. For the first transaction, the partial disallowance was deleted on the principle that anything allowed by the AO cannot be taken away by the Tribunal.

Natural gas, furnace oil, light diesel oil and naphtha consumed by industry to generate electricity which is then used in manufacture of end products, namely, caustic soda and industrial chemicals can be considered to be 'raw material' or 'consumable source' under Gujarat Sales Tax Act – matter remanded: Supreme Court

RESPONDENT-assessees have received the benefit of exemption during the period 2001-2005. They got that benefit under the Circular dated 19th February, 2001, which Circular was sought to be superseded by the impugned Circular dated 2nd September, 2005. The 2005 Circular was challenged before the Gujarat High Court in number of writ petitions filed by respondent-assessees.

The controversy before the Supreme Court is whether the Commissioner on the administrative side under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act had the authority/competence to issue the 2001 Circular. Several judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts were cited.

Once tribunal has granted full waiver at least in two similarly situated cases, it would not be proper to take a different view and deny full waiver of pre-deposit: Bombay HC

THE petitioners are an ex-servicemen company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners and similar other companies are incorporated pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entered into with the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Defence. The shares of the petitioners are held by war widows and disabled soldiers.

In the present petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 8/10/2008 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in , wherein the tribunal has directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as a condition for hearing the appeal filed by the petitioners.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com

cited in this story