Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs Sub Registrar (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Auction purchasers of immovable property need not pay registration fees or pay stamp duty when filing a copy of sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. Held: In pursuance of the sale notice under SARFAESI Act, the second respondent sold the subject […]
HDFC Bank Limited Vs Commissioner DVAT of Trade And Taxes & Anr (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Form ‘F’ was not issued in respect of inter-state stock transfers by assessee-bank due to default in paying Central Sales Tax and the order of Supreme Court restraining the respondents from taking any kind of coercive action against assessee […]
Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Excise duty shall not be imposed on the generation of aluminum dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminum castings/parts of motor vehicles. Held: The issue arose for consideration was whether the aluminum dross and skimming arising out of the manufacture of aluminum motor […]
Exemption of excise duty could not be denied for mere taking credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods as if assessee was availing such Cenvat credit and such wrongly availed Cenvat credit could be recovered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, recovery of an amount under Rule 6(3) was without the authority of law and hence demands could not be sustained under Rule 6(3) and need to be set aside.
The plea by assessee to quash Enforcement Directorate summons in a money laundering case was quashed as assessee had failed to make out a case for interference for the invocation of 226 of the Constitution and 482 of Cr.P.C.
Since excess amount paid over and above the net asset value on acquiring a business concern should constitute goodwill however, eligibility of assessee to claim depreciation on Goodwill to AO was restored after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.
Assessee could not be compelled to wait for eternity to agitate its claim seeking refund under the provisions of GST of the amount to which it was entitled to under the statute and also blocking its funds affecting its cash flows, merely because of existence of (non functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delay in filing return was condoned as CBDT, in virtually passing an assessment order on the return of income of assessee had traversed beyond the scope of its power to condone the delay under Section 119(2)(b) and had acted contrary to the provisions of Section 119(2)(b)
Payment of royalty by assessee in lieu of granting license under the royalty and technical knowhow agreement was to be treated as revenue in nature as assessee was already engaged in the manufacturing of motorcycle and Scooter and payment of royalty expenses was not with respect to setting up of manufacturing facility.
Loss suffered by an assessee on account of foreign exchange difference as on the date of balance sheet was an item of expenditure under Section 37(1) as the view of AO and CIT (A) that the investments were made on, from the FNCR loans was not based on any supporting material and was only a presumption.
