In present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court relied on the Judgment of M/s Canon India and have observed that Joint/Additional Director (in short “DRI”) is not the ‘proper officer’ to issue show cause notice under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against order under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, by observing that alternate remedy is available to file appeal under Section 51 of TNVAT act as in the impugned order detailed finding on facts has been provided.
In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court rejected appeal of Revenue and have observed that deduction under Section 36 would be available to the assesse as the business undertaken by the assesse could not be termed as extension of its business.
The case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure. The scope of Section 87 is wholly based upon the ‘opinion’ of the concerned Commissioner to the effect that the interests of the revenue were to be safeguarded and sanctioning coercive recovery proceedings of the nature of bank attachment in a particular case.
In present facts of the case, while dismissing Revenue Appeals it was held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that it is impossible to maintain separate account in respect of Input and input services received and used in the manufacture of LPG, as there is no intention to use the particular input and input services in a particular quantity used for manufacture of LPG. Further, it was also held that CENVAT Credit is also admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or by-product.
Meera Pipes Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed that cross examination of witness is mandatory in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Also, it was observed that private notebook relied on without recording statements and its authors there was no legally […]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court provided relief to the Petitioner observing that in the absence of new facts coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the original assessment proceedings, the reopening could not […]
Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Concluion: In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal, it was held that the activities of Assessee comes under “charitable purpose” as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act and is eligible for exemption, because the amounts received by the assessee […]
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court have allowed the writ petition filed by the Company, wherein it was held that so far as the ownership of land is concerned, each company has right to purchase property and the Benami Act, 1988, would not extend to properties purchased by the company.
It was held that transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company, instead of an individual or an HUF, without consideration or at a price lower than the fair market value does not attract Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
