"28 April 2013" Archive

If similar matter was remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) vide earlier order, present order also to be remanded back

Khillan & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (CESTAT Delhi)

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...

Read More

Sec. 73 applies only if assessee incurres loss from Sale / Purchas eof Shares or intends to C/F non-absorbed loss

The Commissioner of Income Tax VI Vs. Appollo Vikas Steels Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

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 invo...

Read More

Assessee is in category of a ‘scientific research association’ or not should be decided by Central Government

Centre for Development of Telematics And Anr. Vs UOI And Ors. (Delhi High Court)

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 dat...

Read More

Addition not sustainable in absence of any difference in details and reconciliation statement furnished by assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax- IV Vs Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. (Gujarat High Court)

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 re...

Read More

No reversal under Cenvat rule 6 is required in case of clearances to SEZ unit/developers

Ashlyn Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)

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 peri...

Read More

Intent to evade payment duty is a sina qua non for invoking penal provision u/s. 11AC

M/s. Landis + Gyr Ltd. Vs CCE-KOL-V (CESTAT Kolkata)

Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs. 3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in or in relation to the...

Read More

AICTE approval not required for University-approved MBA – SC

Association Of Management Of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council For Technical Education & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

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...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

August 2021