Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise/Service Tax

Summons - No deprivation of liberty - High Court not to interfere : High Court

AN Excise officer issuing summons to appear with records cannot be said to be deprivation of liberty of an individual. The Court does not find any acceptable legal ground raised in the writ petition. It can be presumed that it was for egoistic reasons and not on any concrete legal foundation. If the petitioner is unfamiliar to explain the accounts maintained by them, it is always open to them to take along a person who is well versed with their accounts to explain to the officer his queries. But on that ground they cannot seek to dispense with their personal appearances.

Income Tax

Whether expenditure incurred on restructuring of business is allowable as revenue expenses or to be amortised as per Sec 35D? - Allowable as revenue expenditure: ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether the expenditure incurred on restructuring of the business is allowable as revenue expense or to be amortised as per the provisions of section 35D . Whether the AO was duty bound to determine the expenditure which had been incurred in relation to exempt income adopting a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances and not to disallow on ad hoc basis - Whether Rule 8D has retrospective application. And the Tribunal has answered the first question in favour of the assessee.

Customs

Customs – Confiscation of Currency – Redemption at the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority – Statement under Section 108 admissible: High Court

The petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Authorities at the departure hall of the Chennai Air Port on 6.5.2000 and on examination of his baggage, the authorities recovered Indian and Foreign currency equivalent to Rs.2,03,358/-. The Customs Authorities recorded a statement from the petitioner under section 108 of the Customs Act on 6.5.2000, wherein the petitioner appears to have stated that the money belonged to one Abdullah and he has to hand it over at Singapore to one Rahman for a monetary consideration.

See our columns Monday for the judgements