Brief issue involved in the matter is that whether the credit on inputs and capital goods / services used in fabrication, erection, installation of towers and shelters is admissible or not. Further, issue also involves that whether extended period can be invoked in the present matter.
The appellant received patterns from their customers to whom they supply the casting manufactured using the patterns. In one of the order the total cost of pattern was amortized and accordingly the appellant did not took into consideration the value of pattern while clearing the additional order.
Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy. The policy in the instant case was lying in a lapsed condition since 14th October, 2011 and, therefore, was not in force as on 06.03.2012, resultantly, the claim over Accident benefit was not payable to the respondent as per the conditions of the contract of insurance.
Vuppalapati Venkata Rama Rao Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another (Telangana High Court) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss needs to be viewed seriously – case not fit to grant anticipatory bail Facts- The Punjab National Bank has alleged that the company has availed various credit facilities from the consortium of banks […]
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. (Supreme Court of India) Non-challenge of validity of Regulation 31-A confirms interest demand under the same Facts- The subject matter of the present dispute is demand made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation by way of contribution payable by the appellant for the period from […]
In absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case doesn’t and cannot reply on section 22C(2) of the Act. Unless the company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) would not be liable and cannot be prosecuted.
Held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.
Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Conclusion- Cash deposited in bank was transferred to insurance company by way of insurance premium in the name of respective insurer – Assessee acted as facilitator and not the owner of the cash deposited in bank account – Addition not possible under section 69A. Facts- The assessee deposited […]
As own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of capital work in progress. A presumption can be drawn that the own fund is utilized in such capital work in progress. Therefore there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expenses.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & GST (Madras High Court) Facts- Exemption claimed by the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner sought settlement of dispute under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, revenue argued that lubricant figures in 4th schedule of the Act and such goods are expressly […]
