Join our webinars on GST Tribunals preparation. Learn to grow your IDT practice and prepare for GSTAT with expert guidance. Register now for ₹899 + GST!
Where the details in the charts relied upon in the show-cause notice have been culled out from the trade and order logs and, in the circumstances of the case, it was not only relevant but even necessary that the appellant be furnished with those trade and order logs so that she could possibly make out a case based on other orders punched into the system, non-furnishing of the trade and order logs to the appellant in the circumstances of this case resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice
Had there been no minimum penalty prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 38, it would have been open for the adjudicating authority to consider the conduct of the defaulter and the extent of delay taking into account the extenuating circumstances while imposing penalty. But once the statute prescribes the minimum penalty without giving any discretion in favour of the adjudicating authority, then one has to go by the provisions of the Act
In order to be covered within the expression derived from it is sine qua non that the relation between the income and source must be that of the first degree Where the relation between income and source slips from first to second degree, income stands excluded from the scope of expression derived from and may fall within the purview of attributable to.
For allowing credit of tax paid on input goods/service used in or in relation to manufacture of a finished product, what is relevant is as to whether the items in respect of which input duty credit is being claimed are covered by the definition of “input” or “input service” and finished product is chargeable to duty for allowing the credit of duty paid on input goods and/or of service tax paid on input services; it is not relevant as to whether the duty on the finished product has been paid at specific rate or at ad valorem rate and of at ad valorem rate whether on the assessable value determined under section 4 or section 4A of the Excise Act.
In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year; such a recording is absolutely mandatory as per the provision and as laid down in various judgments
The disallowance of claim under section 35D made by the AO by excluding the share premium from the capital employed in the business of the company is justified.
Section 44BB(1) does not talk of `extraction of mineral oil’ simplicitor; it prefixes phrase `in connection with’ to the expression `extraction of mineral oil’, which shows that the section, by virtue of the phrase `in connection with’, is talking of something other than physical operations below the surface of the earth
Coming to the merits of the case, the first question that needs to be decided is whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to present its case. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent that there is no requirement of the Commission to invite parties to present their point of view before forming a prima-facie opinion. But the Commission may for the purpose of satisfying itself on any aspect permit the parties to present
It is evident from the facts of the case that an automatic voltage stabilizer involves the operation of a number of electronic components. A voltage stabilizer might have many components some of which use electricity. This cannot be the sole reason for classifying it as an electrical good. As noticed earlier, an electrical device can be an electronic device, but an electronic device cannot be an electrical device. The Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority after taking into consideration the components of voltage stabilizer, the purpose for which it is used and the principles on which it works has come to the conclusion that the voltage stabilizer is electronic goods, for the purpose of taxation under U.P. Trade Tax Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
Once the three conditions pointed out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to deductions in respect of the interest and charges paid on the loans; the matter would be different only in a case where after borrowing the funds from the bank, the assessee utilizes those very funds by giving interest free loans to others.
