"15 February 2013" Archive

Receipt of order by employee not sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing appeal

Evergreen Drums & Cans (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur (CESTAT Bangalore)

The gist of the above averments is that the concerned person dealing with the matter in the appellant's office received the orders and kept the same with him and forgot to hand it over to the appellant. The identity of "the concerned person dealing with the matter is not forthcoming. The appellant is a corporate entity and hence the conce...

Read More

Merely on basis of entry in ST-3 return it cannot be said whether assessee had availed credit or not

Glyph International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida (CESTAT New Delhi)

The second objection of the department is that the appellant do not satisfy the conditions no. 2(e) of 12/05 ST regarding non-availment of cenvat credit. The appellant's plea from the very beginning has been that they have never availed cenvat credit either in respect of inputs or input services and that they have been claiming filing onl...

Read More

No service tax on providing life insurance to employees as it’s a statutory obligation and not service

Kerala State Insurance Department Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)

By virtue of Rule 22A of Part I KSR, which rules have been formulated by the State Government in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory on the part of any State Government employee to have applied for and obtained coverage in respect of life, by subscribing to a Policy, in the official branc...

Read More

Tribunal’s order not involving substantial question of law cannot be appealed in high court

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur Vs Crane Betel Nut Powder Works (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT in the order impugned have considered the material on record and if there is some evidence on the basis of which the primary and appellate authorities have based their conclusions, then the fact that better evidence ought to have been marshalled by the assessee and absence ...

Read More

RDDB Act – Debt Recovery – Provisions of Income-tax Rules are attracted only insofar as same deal with recovery of debts

C.N. Paramsivan Vs Sunrise Plaza TR. Partner (Supreme Court of India)

Applying the above principles to the case at hand Section 29 of the RDDB Act incorporates the provisions of the Rules found in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act for purposes of realisation of the dues by the Recovery Officer under the RDDB Act....

Read More

Purchase, Sale & lease back of windmill fetal to deduction u/s. 80-IA

Armstrong Knitting Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Chennai)

After perusing the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), it is evident to us that the assessee had earlier purchased the windmill in question, generated wind energy, sold the windmill to its sister concern and got the same leased back and raised claim of deduction in hand. The moot question before us is as to whether the said ...

Read More

To claim deduction u/s. 80-IA(10) that infrastructure facility need not be owned by enterprise

Sugam Construction (P.) Ltd Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Ahmedabad (ITAT Ahmedabad)

It was wrong on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee has merely acted as a contractor. By analyzing the nature of work executed by the assessee, it can be gathered that the assessee had acted as a developer. The assessee has undertaken the responsibility of execution of the work. The assessee has developed its own design and on ge...

Read More

Search Assessment after completion of time for completion is invalid

A.V.S. Sivaraj Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II (Madras High Court)

Going by the admitted facts herein, as noticed in the assessment order that the assessee was also subjected to search on 19.1.1996 and the case of the assessee falling under Section 158BC, the relevant provision for limitation would be only as per Section 158BE(1)(a). That being the case, the file noting has no significance for the purpos...

Read More

Assessee can claim deduction for provision for warranty if it was not a contingent liability

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P.) Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)

In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects exist...

Read More

Assessment order allowing deduction without examining the same is erroneous

Cairn Energy India (P.) Ltd. Vs Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) (ITAT Chennai)

Assessee had given Assessing Officer a short description of an allocation of expenses based on which it had preferred a claim under Section 80-IB, but, unless and until assessee could make a meaningful link of the basis adopted by it for such allocation of expenses, with its eventual claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, it c...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031