Held that estimating past savings as Rs. 6,00,000, without any basis, instead of Rs. 9,03,900 and also ignoring the evidences produced for the same. Addition of the same deleted.
Held that refractory bricks required for re-lining of the furnace are covered within the definition of capital goods and hence eligible for EPCG scheme as per notification no. 102/2009- Cus dated 11.09.2009
Held that allegation of clandestine removal only on the basis of incriminating statements, which were retracted, in absence of corroborative evidence is unsustainable.
Held that payment towards management support services is allowable as business expenditure as the same is paid for smooth and effective running of the business.
Chandigarh CESTAT held that if the department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading different from that claimed by the assessee, the department has to adduce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof.
Held that addition made merely on the basis of statement by one of the partners and without finding any incriminating material is untenable in law.
Sanskruthi Motors Vs Joint Commissioner (Kerala High Court) Held that the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. Hence, imposition of penalty/ tax on allegation that there was ample time to revalidate the e-way bill not justified as there was no finding of […]
Held that absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver to drive, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either insured/ third parties, to avoid liability towards insured. Insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care.
Held that innocent party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of his counsel/ consultant as long as there are no willful latches and negligence on the part of the party.
Held that overall visual representation adopted by the defendants using mark facebake/ facecake clearly depicts the mala fide intent in obtaining unfair advantage by use of the mark similar to the plaintiff i.e. facebook
