Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Valuation – import of ship – addendum to MOA not accepted: Supreme Court

THE date on which the said addendum stood executed is not given. Further, when did the addendum stand incorporated in the MoA . We do not find the date on which the clause stood inserted in the MoA. Further, the said addendum does not give any reason for reduction in the price from US$ 9,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. Further, the most clinching factor to be seen is that the said addendum appears to have been executed at the request of the buyer. In our view, this is a self-serving document.

Income Tax

Exclusion under Section 67A is for 'association of persons or body of individuals' and not member of such AOP or BOI – Anything can be excluded from an item only when it is included in that item: ITAT by majority

THERE was a Government advertisement – “the Nation is fighting corruption – support it”. What does this mean? Are we supposed to support corruption or the Nation?

In computing the total income of an assessee who is a member of an association of persons or a body of individuals wherein the shares of the members are determinate and known [other than a company or a cooperative society or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act]

Now does the exclusion – other than a company refer to association of persons or a body of individuals or the member of an AOP or BOI?

Central Excise

Commissioner directing DC to file an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against an order passed by Addl Commissioner – He couldn't have done so at material time – Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeal.

THE Commissioner (Appeals), however, did not think this as appropriate. He dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that whereas the order-in-original was passed by the Additional Commissioner, an appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is not of the same level as Additional Commissioner and, therefore, such authorization under Sec.35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is improper as under this section only an adjudicating authority can be authorized to file an appeal.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements