Jurisprudentiol–Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.FERA

Imposing penalty on the proprietorship concern as well as on the proprietor would amount to punishing the same person twice for the same contravention. – High Court

WHEN the proprietorship concern is found guilty and penalty is imposed on it, that penalty should be presumed to have been imposed on its proprietor and, therefore, no separate penalty could be imposed on the proprietor as has been done in the present case.

Income Tax

Non-Compete Fee paid by assessee to promoters not cost of acquisition for computing long term capital gains: ITAT by Majority

NO reason to allow deduction of Rs 24,24,50,000/- paid as non competing fees towards cost of acquisition of shares or towards cost of improvement of shares and as a permissible deduction for computing capital gain arising on sale of shares. The payment in question has no nexus with the shares and can by no stretch of imagination be treated as cost or cost of improvement of shares.

Service Tax

Collecting the Service Tax and not depositing it to the treasury – penalty justified - CESTAT

THE contention of the appellants that the reversionary authority has no power to impose penalty as original authority has opted not to impose any penalty is not convincing as there is a clear violation of payment of service tax on their part.

See our columns Monday for the judgements