"12 March 2018" Archive

IBBI signs an MoU with Reserve Bank of India

Both the RBI and the IBBI are interested in the effective implementation of the Code and its allied rules and regulations, through a quick and efficient resolution process. Therefore, they have agreed under the MoU to assist and co-operate with e...

Read More
Posted Under: Corporate Law |

Clandestine removal cannot be proved by mere weighment slips or inculpatory statement of Director

M/s S.R. Ingots Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, (CESTAT Delhi)

M/s S.R. Ingots Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, (CESTAT Delhi) Revenue’s entire case for clandestine removal is based upon the recovery of certain weighment slips from the appellant’s factory during the course of the search. The appellants have taken a categorical stand that they were having the weighing bridge in their own premises also [...

Read More

Disputed Commission cannot be taxed unless received

DCIT Vs. S.V.S Prop mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

DCIT Vs. S.V.S Prop mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment order about the submissions made by the assessee that the commission was not received by the assessee company on account of dispute with the said party. Since the commission income has not been settled and crystallized, the same has […...

Read More

Addition U/s 68 justified for Receipts from non-existent broker

Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)

Assessing officer treated the receipts as unexplained cash credit for the reason that M/s. National Multi Commodity Exchange of India had confirmed that M/s. Vatika Merchants (supra) was expelled from the exchange long prior to the transactions in question. ...

Read More

Wealth Tax: Non striking irrelevant column in notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders notice invalid

T.S.Kalyana Chakravarthy Vs Dy.Director of Wealth Tax (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

The Ld.CWT(A) should have struck off the irrelevant column and made known the assessee by mentioning for which reason the penalty was initiated. Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act are parimateria to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invali...

Read More

Date of Cheque Presentation is date of payment of Service Tax

M/s. DB Corp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)

There is demand of interest for the intervening period from the date of presentation of cheque till its realization. I find that as per Rule 6 (2A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the date of presentation of cheque is the date of payment of Service tax. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Travel Inn India Pvt. Ltd. ...

Read More

Bogus purchase: Addition should be of income component only

N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (Gujarat High Court)

During search proceedings certain blank cheques and blank bills were found from assessee’s premises of the parties from whom purchases were made, and AO made addition of entire purchase from these parties, Tribunal was justified in holding that addition of 25% amount as income would suffice....

Read More

Section 10 (23C) (iiiad) Total annual receipts of each institution should be taken separately for the benefit of tax exemption

MS Vivekanand Society of Education and Research Vs CIT (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)

M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and Research Vs CIT (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Where there are more than one such institutions, which are under a particular society or trust, such as the assessee society in the present case, the aggregate annual receipts of each of the educational institutions would have to be considered separa...

Read More

Sales Tax on LPG Cylinders payable on price finalized by MoP & NG

Ms Universal Cylinders Limited Vs The Commercial Taxes Officer (Supreme Court of India)

Since a common question of law arises in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant­ assessee manufactures cylinders for storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). At the relevant time...

Read More

No Deemed Dividend U/s. 2(22)(e) If Assessee is not a Shareholder in Payer Company

Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The intention behind enacting provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend bec...

Read More

Featured Posts