Following the earlier order to reduce the litigation at the grass root level first appellate order is set aside and we send the matter back to ld. Appellate Authority to re-examine the issue without insisting on pre-deposits by him. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the appeals to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same in accordance with law.
Assessing Officer committed an error in resorting to explanation to section 73 of the Act. The issue before him was whether the income earned by the assessee through sale of shares should be taxed as business income or should be treated as capital gain. Such issue had to be decided on the basis of the question whether the assessee is involved in any business of buying and selling shares or had purchased and sold the shares by way of investment.
Issue of whether the petitioner fell within the category of a ‘scientific research association’ or in the category of ‘other institution’ partly doing scientific research should be considered by the central government afresh in the manner indicated above and in accordance with law. To enable this, we are setting-aside the notification dated 12.04.2007 and direct the central government to decide this question afresh within three months. The central government will examine the observations above as also the requirements of Rule 5D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of difference of balances of Rs.14,03,85,459/-. The Tribunal after considering the explanation of the assessee-respondent and the findings of the CIT(A), recorded the reconciliation statement substantiated by necessary evidence which had been furnished by the respondent assessee. The remand report of the Assessing Officer was also called for here. In absence of any difference in details and reconciliation statement furnished by the assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition and the same came to be confirmed by the Tribunal. There being no material to take a contrary view & as both the authorities have concurrently held to delete the said addition, we find on reason to interfere in this question.
In this appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is against a demand raised on the appellant in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period from July to December 2008. During the said period, the appellant (a unit in the domestic tariff area) had cleared their products to SEZ developers/units. During the same period they had also cleared their products to the DTA on payment of duty. The department treated the clearances to SEZ developers/units as clearance of exempted goods and, having found no maintenance of separate accounts in terms of rule 6(1) of the CCR 2004, chose to demand 10% of the sale price (taxes excluded) of the goods cleared to SEZ developers (units) during the above period.
MBA course is a technical education, we hold that MBA course is not a technical course within the definition of the AICTE Act and in so far as reasons assigned for MCA course being ‘technical education’, the same does not hold for MBA course. Therefore, for the reasons assigned while answering the points which are framed in so far as the MCA course is concerned, the approval from the AICTE is not required for obtaining permission and running MBA course by the appellant colleges.
