M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) ITAT held that it was unable to verify certain facts relevant to the issue being agitated, viz. (i) whether and to what extent the buildings/godowns are being used for the activities eligible for 80P deduction or other activities as being claimed before us; and (ii) […]
State of Odisha Vs Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (Orissa High Court) The question before the ACST as well as the Tribunal was whether the mosquito repellant ‘Good Knight’ sold by the Opposite Party-Dealer could be classified as ‘insecticide’ under Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B to the OVAT Act attracting 4% tax or […]
Pushp Niketan School Samiti Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is seen that the assessee has filed written submission wherein it is stated that same amount shown as other income in the P&L Account including interest of FDR and saving accounts of Rs.83,008/- and other charges i.e. income of fine, Lab fee, Founder day charges, photograph […]
DCIT Vs Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd (ITAT Ranchi) The undisputed facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of procurement and supply of IMFL, FMFL as well as country made liquor and other similar products and as per Government mandate the assessee is authorized to charge 5% on MRP on the wholesales […]
Concerned authorities have justified issuance of Show Cause Notice by invoking extended period of limitation, but for a mere allegation that there was suppression. It is very much settled position of law that allegations, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof.
Malik Network & Computer P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) One of the controversies in the present case arises towards computation of limitation period under Section 153C of the Act for the purposes of issuance of notice and assessment thereon. As per Section 153A of the Act (in the case of searched persons), the limitation […]
When software itself is not taxable, the training and related activities concerned with utilization & installation cannot be held to be FTS.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case, it is an undisputed facts that the automotive dealers had paid service tax on the nature of services described in the invoices issued to the appellant; that payment of service tax by such dealers have been accepted […]
Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue.
For assessment of Bulk liquid Cargo duty is payable on quantity received in shore tank & not on quantity mentioned in Bill of Leading/invoice
