Jurisprudentiol–Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
When the legal position was very plain like daylight, there was no reason for assessee to avail undue benefit of CENVAT Credit on Garden Maintenance Services – Exoneration cannot be claimed from penal liability – CESTAT
TO the appellant's contention that no penalty is imposable as there was no contravention of any provisions, the CESTAT observed that as there was not even a remote connection between garden maintenance and manufacture/clearance of the final product, the appellant ought not to have availed any credit.
Income Tax
Assessee is warehousing corporation - avails exemption u/s 10(29) on various types of income - part of exemption disallowed - penalty imposed - held, unless assessee conceals income or furnishes wrong information, penalty cannot be levied for mere disallowance of exemption: HC
AFTER the Apex Court decision in the case of Dharamendra Textiles Processors case () which distinguished the SC decision in the case of Dilip Shroff and deliberated on the issue of presence of mens rea before imposition of penalty, it seems Revenue's belief to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has got an additional leg. However, the High Court has held that the two essential pre-requisites before penalty is levied are that the assessee should have either “concealed the particulars of his income”, or alternatively the assessee should have “furnished inaccurate particulars” of his income. Denial of an exemption availed by the assessee cannot be construed as furnishing of wrong information or concealment of income. It cannot be a valid ground to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com