Confirmation of demand under a category different than one proposed in the Show Cause Notice cannot be upheld. The Tribunal had, for the above proposition, relied up the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahakoshal Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 18 STT 383 (Bang. – CESTAT).
Even if a company which has good and solid financial foundation and also has capacity to pay, cannot avoid its obligation to pay and be allowed to neglect its financial obligations and when a company which is really financially sound and healthy does not make and neglects to make payment of the amount due and payable by it then the Court cannot fail in its duty to take note of such intentional neglect and Court cannot entertain and allow such stand or defence and, consequently, the court cannot deny the petitioner-creditor an order of winding up against the company which neglects, rather wilfully neglects, to discharge its financial obligation/debt.
It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009 and filed appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012. So also admittedly, there was a delay of more than two years in seeking appeal remedy before the learned first appellate authority.
MCA is pleased to announce that a refund process will be introduced by 16th September, 2012 for the unlinked incorrect NEFT payments. Revised refund e-Form along with instruction kit will be available on the MCA21 portal. Users are requested to avail this facility.
Ld. DR submitted that the case should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for compliance of Rule 46A(3) of the Rules and the AR contended that if we reach to the conclusion that the matter needs to be considered by the authorities
CBI registered a case against a Superintendent of Customs, Postal Appraising Section, Videsh Dak Bhavan, Ballard Estate, Mumbai U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a bribe of Rs.3000/- from the complainant for allegedly reducing the invoice value of product i.e Tablet PC (Wacom Cintiq brand) which was purchased by the complainant through online shopping site from foreign country.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) is allowable independently and irrespective of provisions for bad and doubtful debts created by the assessee in relation to the advances of the rural branches, subject to the limitation that an amount should not be deducted twice under section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia ).
We do not see any merit in the argument of the appellants that they were only an intermediary and not doing the work themselves and hence their activities did not amount to any service. Any service provided in relation to installation of electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings, became taxable from 16-06-05.
Question of copyrighted article or actual copyright docs not arise in the context of software both in the DTAA and in the Income Tax Act since the right to use simpliciter of a software program itself is a part of the copyright in the software irrespective of whether or not a further right to make copies is granted.
A loan taken or capital borrowed is, by itself, not a capital asset, nor does it give an advantage of an enduring nature; as long as a loan is taken or capital is borrowed for the purpose of business, the assessee is entitled to claim interest paid thereon as deduction under section 36(1)(iii);
