While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record.
The petitioners are alleged to have floated bogus firms and by entering into bogus transactions with bigger firms, they were getting huge amounts deposited in the bank accounts of the bogus firms so floated and were eventually facilitating the big firms to save on GST in a fraudulent manner
Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- Refund claim filed by the appellant is rejected on various grounds like- -For the refund claim period no ST-3 return was filed. -Services allegedly exported by the appellant were not used outside India. -Some input tax credit invoices […]
Celestial Aviation Trading 64 Limited Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Facts- The petitioner entered into an Aircraft Specified Lease Agreement with Air India Limited for lease of one aircraft for a period of 12 years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made applications under Section 197 of the Act for ‘Nil‟ rate […]
CIT Vs South Indian Bank Ltd (Kerala High Court) Facts- The AO through the assessment order disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia). Similarly, the AO disallowed the revaluation of unquoted securities adopted by the assessee. The appeal of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed in part. Further, in the appeal […]
Where assessee claimed depreciation on new server, storage and accessories procured during the year on lease and the assessee incurred cost of such asset and was also paying interest on lease; the assessee would be eligible to claim such depreciation.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the […]
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the […]
The order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee.
The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the revenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income.
