CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty passed on via supplementary invoice is eligible for cenvat credit as it is not due to reason of any suppression of fact, fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement, etc and hence not barred by provisions of Rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
ITAT Rajkot held that dividend income and interest earned on surplus held with cooperative bank would be eligible for deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Mumbai held that insurance premium paid for group insurance to cover employees opting for Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) amounts to input service and accordingly cenvat credit available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Facts- The appellant, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, manufacturer of […]
ITAT Rajkot held that service of notice to the last known address of the assessee cannot be held as invalid service of notice as assessee has left the place to unknown location without informing anyone.
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the impugned order cannot be held to be in violation of principles of natural justice as the said order was preceded by a show cause notice and the petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the same.
Telangana High Court held that as all the material facts were fully and truly disclosed reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that a Keyman Insurance Policy provides for an insurance policy taken by a business organisation on the life of an employee and hence allowable as business expenditure.
Orissa High Court held that circular dated 29th March 2016 issued by the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority is ultra vires of Odisha Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 OMVT Act and liable to be quashed. The circular directed to collect tax from the dealers/manufacturers of motor vehicles on the basis of total number of vehicles possessed and registered during the entire year by the dealer.
NCLAT Delhi held that Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only direct further investigation in a case of closure and not where DG has submitted report showing contravention of Competition Act 2002 by parties.
Supreme Court held that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature the Court may modify the language so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature.
