Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
If the provisions of clause (d) of notification dated 23.5.1995 are perused, it can be seen that the income must not have been chargeable to tax on the basis of any order passed by the jurisdictional High Court and it should become taxable as a consequence of any retrospective amendment of law or on a decision of the Supreme Court. Insofar as the case in question is concerned, it can be seen that the petitioner was assessed with the status as a Firm and that subsequently, following the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Co.’s case (supra), assessment was re-opened and the tax was re-assessed treating the petitioner as an Association Of Persons. Therefore, situation as contemplated in paragraph 2 clause (d) was not available to the petitioner to claim the benefit thereof.
In the absence of any material to show that said amount was sent by the assessee’s mother and brothers from Singapore, the claim of the assessee does not merit any consideration. Thus the amount of Rs. 78 lakhs treated as unexplained investment under section 69 and assessable as undisclosed income for the block period stands confirmed.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Superintendent of Central Excise, Ahmedabad for demanding & accepting a bribe of Rs. 14,500/- from the Complainant.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 (Bom.) considered the issue at length and held that the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, is very wide and covers not only services which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final product but also after manufacturing of the final products.
Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of CCE v. Ultratech Cements (P.) Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 244 held that any service availed by the assessee in or in relation to the business of manufacturing or providing output service is entitled to input service credit.
Minimum subscription would have to be calculated after taking into account the requests made for withdrawal of share application. There is another reason for coming to the same conclusion. Undoubtedly, in this case like in other public issues, there are rejections by a Registrar based on various technical grounds. If as per the clause of minimum subscription, the minimum subscription had to be calculated as on the date of closure, it would be well-nigh impossible to carry out that exercise as more often than not the rejections are made even after the date of closure.
Provided that no such application for review shall be allowed without previous notice and an opportunity of being heard is given to the opposite party.
