Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

No Penalty in case of interpretational nature: SC

THE Commissioner, himself in his order-in-original has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature. Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, penalty should not have been imposed upon the appellant.

Income Tax

Whether when compensation is paid for acquiring agricultural land, rigours of Sec 194LA are not attracted - Yes, rules ITAT

THE Assessee is Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thane (SLAO). It paid 80% of the cost of the land to 29 persons as compensation for the land acquired from them without deducting any TDS. Observing this, the AO issued a show cause notice asking him to explain as to why he should not be treated as assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act for the above default and the interest u/s 201(1A) should not be levied for the same.

THE question before the Tribunal is - Whether when the compensation is paid for acquiring the agricultural land, the rigours of Sec 194LA are not attracted and whether, even if the land is not cultivated for long, it remains agricultural in nature as long as it is not put to any other use. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Yet another High Court upholds Service Tax on Renting; levy and retrospective amendment not unconstitutional: HC

IN these writ petitions, as common question of law is involved and validity of Sub-clause [zzzz] of Clause[ 105] of Sec.65 of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75 [5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010 is under challenge, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements