ITAT has committed an error in dismissing the appellant’s appeal merely by observing that while deciding the appeal of revenue the stand of the CIT (Appeal) has been upheld. We find that the appellant’s contention that the net profit at 2.5% could not have been applied by CIT (Appeal) was required to be decided by the ITAT and the appellant’s appeal could not have been dismissed summarily on the basis of the decision in revenue’s appeal without dealing with the appellant’s contention. It is evident from the order of ITAT that while deciding revenue’s appeal also the said question of applying of net profit rate at 2.5% was not dealt with by it.
The expenditure is incurred by the assessee not for generation of the scrap but for generation of the finished product. There is and cannot be any expenses which are incurred for generation of scrap. Scrap is bi-product of the manufacturing activity. Therefore, there are no expenses which could be excluded from the sale of scrap.
Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid by the job worker has already been considered by the Tribunal and in the case of Multi Organics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Order Nos. A/180-181/2010/SMB/C-IV, dated 31-3-2010]. It has been held that even though the job worker is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST and if he has not availed to exemption, the service tax credit would be admissible to the person who availed the services of job worker.
CLB has rendered a finding that the application for amendment was allowed for determination of the issues between the parties and for the purpose of framing issues for avoiding multiplicity of litigations.
Record shows that the name of the petitioner was never entered into the register of members as a holder of 52470 shares; his own case is that the share transfer forms were available with him in 1998; he however took no steps to get himself on to the register of members; fault was entirely of the petitioner;
The W.T. return for Individuals, Hindu Undivided Families and Companies is to be filed in Form BA. Value of an asset for an assessment year is to be declared as on the relevant Valuation Date i.e. 31st March of each year. Thus, for the assessment year 2012-13, the valuation date will be 31.3.2012, while for the A.Y. 2013-14, the valuation date will be 31.3.2013.
Director General had concluded on the basis of his investigation that it was not proved that foreign airlines hold about 90% market share in the relevant market of international flying to and fro from India. The appellant was unable to give any specific statistics before the CCI or even before us. On the other hand, from the documents on record
If a certain receipt cannot be taxed under any other head, only then the sections dealing with ‘Income from Other Sources’, come into play in domestic taxation matters. Likewise, under the DTAAs, if a sum can be taxed under any other Article, provisions of Article 22 will not be applicable. We are of the opinion, in light of the earlier decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal income received by the assessee-company form McKinsey India is not to be treated as Royalty-rather it has to assessed as business income as per Article 7 of the DTAA.
In the present case, as stated hereinabove, admittedly original accused No. 2 was appointed as managing director of original accused No. 1-company and original accused No. 1-company had also the whole-time directors and the manager. The petitioner was arraigned as an accused only as a ordinary director.
As far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, they lay down that the comparable companies should be functionally comparable to the tested party. There are no specific standards of comparability on the basis of abnormal profits or loss. Rule 10B(2) provides that the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:-
