Expense on payment of guarantee commission is revenue expenditure

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

The only question is whether the guarantee commission paid to the bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility and loan from financial institutions for the purpose of machinery and equipments is revenue expenditure. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd (supra) was dealing precisely with the said ...

Read More

VAT on terminalling services provided to BPCL when Service Tax already been paid

SHV Energy Private Limited Vs The State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)

The petitioner's first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used b...

Read More

S.145A Unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income irrespective of Method of Accounting followed

CIT Vs M/s. Diamond Dye Chem Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit ...

Read More

Reassessment for mere non submission of working sheet of deduction U/s. 10A with Form 56F is not valid

HCL Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)

 The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact […]...

Read More

ITAT clarifies period of limitation for filing rectification application U/s. 254(2)

Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expre...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied on a basis other than what it was in Quantum Appeal

Indermal Manaji Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)

S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied ...

Read More

SC quashes appeal against CA for issue of alleged wrong certificate based on manipulated figures

ICAI Vs M.S. Rathi Civil Appeal (Supreme Court of India)

The present appeal arises out of the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Chartered Accountants Reference No. 5/2000....

Read More

No Service Tax on Sale of Used Car : Kerala HC

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs ADVS. Sri.John Varhese (Kerala High Court)

The question concerns the sale of used cars. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not directly deal with the sale of a motor vehicle, a movable property; but the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, does. The Motor Vehicles Act, though, deals with the procedure post-sale. Here, a motor vehicle dealer is dealing in used cars. Is its transaction a sale i...

Read More

CIT not entitled to withdraw Sec. 12A registration for non charitable activities

CIT Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron and Steel Market Committee (Bombay High Court)

Commissioner has invoked its powers under Section 12(AA)(3) of the Act. The said powers are circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Sub Section 3 of Section 12AA of the Act. The Commissioner, nowhere has given the finding that the activities of the Respondent­ institution are not genuine one or that the said activity carried out a...

Read More

Not asked Jethmalani to use objectionable words For Jaitley: Kejriwal

Mr. Arun Jaitley Vs Mr. Arvind Keriwal & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

Extract of Reply Submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi High Court in which he stated that  he never asked senior advocate Mr. Ram Jethmalani to pose objectionable questions to Mr. Arun Jaitley or use objectionable words while recording of evidence in the Rs. 10-crore defamation suit initiated by Mr. Arun Jaitley....

Read More
Page 3 of 98312345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,453)
Company Law (3,347)
Custom Duty (6,579)
DGFT (3,419)
Excise Duty (4,040)
Fema / RBI (3,237)
Finance (3,415)
Income Tax (24,908)
SEBI (2,721)
Service Tax (3,278)