Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Review order passed by Committee of Chief Commissioner's after expiry of limitation period - Tribunal has no power to validate and revive such invalid and ineffective order - LB decision in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. is contrary to law laid down by Apex Court in case M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd. and which has been followed by HP High Court in case of Bhilai Wires Ltd - COD application as well as appeal filed by Revenue dismissed: CESTA T

THE application under Section 35E (4) was filed within the prescribed time limit of one month from the date of the communication of the review order, i.e. on 16.11.2011. However, along with this application, an application for condonation of delay was also filed for condoning the delay of 8 days that happened in review of the Commissioner's order dated 15.7.11 by the Committee of Chief Commissioners

Income Tax

Income Tax - Sections 45, 55(2), 263 -Whether surrender of tenancy rights can be taxed as capital gains - Whether as per Section 55(2) of Income Tax Act, cost of acquisition of tenancy rights has to be taken as nil - Whether compensation on surrender of tenancy rights prior to 01-04-1995, no capital gains tax is leviable - Whether Tribunal cannot justify an order passed u/s 263 on grounds other than those mentioned by Commissioner in revised order itself.

IN the assessment finalised, the Assessing Authority accepted the contention of the assessee that the tenancy rights being capital in nature, the receipt of Rs.2.60crores as compensation for the surrender of the tenancy rights could not be assessed. In exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT sought to revise the order, placing reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in CIT Vs. Gulab Chand.

Service Tax

ST - Consulting Engineer Service - appellant receiving services from companies located outside India - even if in agreement between service provider and service recipient, service recipient undertakes to pay tax, service recipient is not liable or made liable to pay same prior to 18th April, 2006 - appeals allowed: CESTAT

THE Appellants are having their factory/plant at Jamshedpur. During the period from 01.04.99 to 31.03.04, the Appellant were receiving design and drawing, supervision services and supervision for engineering/manufacturing activities in India from various companies located outside the territory of India, under their expansion plan of their steel plant.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements