Balram Garg Vs Securities And Exchange Board of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- P. Chand Jeweller Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on April 13, 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Private Limited Company. However, pursuant to a resolution passed by the shareholders on July 5, 2011, the company was converted into a Public Limited […]
The appellant has paid a certain amount of customs duty. Thereafter, the appellant has sought to create an asset in the shape of ‘receivables’ so as to not pass the effect of payment of duty to the profit and loss account. To nullify the effect of the entry ‘receivables’, it has created a parallel entry exactly opposite to the receivables in its ledger as ‘provisions’.
The damages awarded against the appellant may have gone beyond the actual loss suffered by the respondent and may not represent the actual loss suffered by him in monetary terms. But the provision of Section 14 of the 1986 Act permits awarding punitive damages.
Union Of India & Ors. Vs Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. submitting that said Writ Petitioner was entitled on the basis of Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act for compensation in receipt of delayed payment as detailed in […]
The appellants are public sector undertakings established by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for distribution of electricity. The issue is whether service tax can be levied on liquidated damages received by the appellants from the other parties who failed to perform as per the contracts.
Mere use of the words or expression wilfully suppressed with intend to avoid duty cannot hold the assessee guilty of wilful suppression. The same has to be established by the department by pointing out as to on what basis they have come to the prima facie conclusion that there has been wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Therefore, mere use of the said words and expression cannot validate the show cause notice. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings itself is bad in law.
It is clear that the income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL. Thus, there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be utilized only for the purpose of scheme. Thus, it has to be capitalized and cannot be considered as revenue receipts.
Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.
Interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable since it was not possible for the appellant to anticipate the events that were to take place in the next financial year and pay advance tax on the basis of those anticipated events.
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs National E-Assessment (ITAT Delhi) Facts- Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in distribution and marketing of a range of Adidas and tailor made branded athletic and lifestyle products. Assessee electronically filed its ROI for A.Y 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 67,85,52,440/-. The case was […]
