The Arbitral Tribunal had thus, articulated the terms of appointment unequivocally and unambiguously. It had made it clear to the parties that its appointment and the proceedings before them would not be governed by ICADR Rules. Accordingly, arbitral tribunal is not bound by ICADR rules for fixation of the fees
It was clear, therefore, that till such time the purchase order was issued pursuant to such acceptance of the offer made by the Petitioner, there was no completed ‘contract’. Consequently, Clause-6.34.1 would not get attracted.
Commissioner of CE & ST Vs Maneesh Exports (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellants have consumed the duty free raw material for achieving the export obligations on yearly basis and on whole as per the LOP issued to them and amended from time to time. No evidence has been produced by the revenue that the terms of […]
Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Himachal (Himachal High Court) It is concluded that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act shall have overriding effect to provisions of HPVAT Act. Hence, the said property is to be permitted to be transferred in favour of petitioners free from all encumbrances in terms of E-aution. Facts- Petitioners are purchasers of […]
Tata Sponge Iron Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) The fundamental requirement of showing the income from “eligible” unit in the gross total income is mandatory which was not complied by the assessee in order to claim deduction u/s.80IA of the amount equal to the income generated by the eligible unit. Facts- The appellant is company […]
Karcher Cleaning Systems Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is a pure trading company involved in the distribution activity without adding any value to the purchased product and hence the RPM is the most appropriate method. Facts- The assessee is a subsidiary of Karcher Beteilgungs GmbH which started its commercial activities on 16.04.2011 […]
Dr. Kalpana Alexander Vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) There is nothing to contradict the opinion of the learned PCIT that there is failure on the part of the learned Assessing Officer to make the minimum enquiry, let alone sufficient enquiry on this aspect. Assessment order held erroneous. Facts- The assessee is an individual, and a medical […]
Bagadia Properties Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) It cannot be always presumed that the loans given to subsidiary companies are for business purposes. It is required to be proved that the subsidiary company has used the interest free loans for some business purposes. Facts- The assessee is undertaking the business of real estate development […]
Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Appeal) (CESTAT Delhi) The fact that the corporate social responsibility is a legal responsibility does not make it an output service. The appellant not entitled to Cenvat Credit on the services used for corporate social responsibility. Facts- The appellant is a non-banking finance corporation engaged in financing projects and […]
JSW Steel Ltd. Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) In view of definition of “Input Service Distributor” contained in Section 2(61), it is necessary that the ISD as an office is required to receive tax invoices towards inward supply. Facts- The Petitioner, being engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of hot and […]
