In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while government can deviate from the route of tenders or public auctions for the grant of contracts, the deviation must not be discriminatory or arbitrary. The deviation from the tender route has to be justified and such a justification must comply with the requirements of Article 14.
CBDT undisputedly are binding on the department and any action in violation thereof renders it as untenable in law, consequently in the extant case, assessment been carried out in violation of instruction issued by CBDT deserves to be quashed, ergo we set-aside the first appellate order passed u/s 250 and quash the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as bad in law.
HC directed Water Resources Department to take into consideration the Representation filed by CG Associates w.r.t the refund of additional amount of GST paid by the CG Associates due to change in rate of taxes.
CIT/PCIT Vs Paradeep Port Trust (Orissa High Court) The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court […]
CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of CSR expenses to book profit, when there is no such requirement to adjust the same while computing book profit as per section 115JB
Court quashes order issued by Department rejecting SVLDR applications of Petitioner since they are based on an erroneous interpretation of not only SVLDR Scheme but also Section 125(1)(h) of Finance Act.
Dabur India Limited Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal No. E/10573/2015 is filed by appellant – M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-1) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-014-14-15 dated 30.12.2014 and Appeal No. E/10574/2015 is filed by appellants-M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-2) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-015-14-15 dated 30.12.2014. The issue in both these appeals is common. Therefore, […]
ITAT held that requirement of filing Form 67 is directory in nature which is evident from the fact that Rule 128(9) does not contemplate disallowance of FTC in case of delay in complying with such condition.
He pointed out that when trainees are employed by the appellant, the appellant spent a significant amount of time and money in training the employees therefore, the employment contract has various conditions put on the trainees. In case the trainee breaches any of those conditions, a specific amount is recoverable from the trainees. The said amount is also sought to be taxed under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
