Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow ' s cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.
Income Tax
Dividend not received by assessee – no tax; If income does not result at all, there cannot be tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialise : Bombay HC
THE revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:- Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in law
i) in holding that the dejure owner of the shares alone is entitled to the dividend declared by a company, though the assessee company might be de facto owner of shares but had no right to receive the dividend from the company unless it is the registered shareholder of the company ?
ii) in holding that the dividend of Rs.16,84,150/- has not accrued to the assessee and thereby holding that such dividend income could not form part of the total income of the assessee ?
iii) in accepting the assessee's submission, that even though the amounts were paid for acquiring the shares, shares have not been delivered to the assessee company and the change in ownership of the shares have not been registered and notified and therefore the assessee's name did not appear in the share registers of the respective companies on the record date and therefore, it could not have received the dividend at all ?
VAT
Compulsory audit by CAs in preference to lawyers – Not illegal – High Court
The main challenge in the petitions is to the constitutional validity of Section 61(1) and the explanation thereto, of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act on the ground that it infringes the equality clause as enshrined in Article 14, the right to carry on profession under Article 19(1)(g) as also under Article 254, as the provisions for "audit" would not fall within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry No. 54 of List II of the VIIth schedule to the Constitution of India. In the alternative to read down Section 61, so as to empower Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners to audit and give report in Form No. 704.
Central Excise
Revenue's idea of irrigating a ROM with a fertile idea fails before Tribunal - Rs 9 Cr case once again lost by Revenue
WE are indeed fortunate enough to have accompanied the case since the time the stay application was heard before the Tribunal. This is because as the case proceeded before the Tribunal, with the passage of time, the never-say-die attitude of the Revenue came to the fore with more vigour than ever.
When the Stay application was listed, the Bench had found a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant & granted waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.8.91 crores duty & lakhs of penalties etc. & fixed the case for an early hearing.
While granting stay, the Tribunal held – “ Even if the fact remains that the goods have been removed clandestinely, the question of confirmation of demand will not arise as the goods are entitled for full exemption .” [ ]
The final order passed by the Tribunal [ ] saw the demand of Rs.8.91 crores & various penalties being swept away by holding that the adjudicating authority had thoroughly agreed that these “clandestinely removed” goods were entitled to exemption under notification 46/94CE & if this be so, there could not be any further duty demand .
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com