Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
R.Shanmugam Pillai & Sons Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) No denial of SVLDRS benefit by treating assessee under arrears category on basis of numbering of appeal and pending adjudication before CESTAT Conclusion: Even though assessee filed an appeal on 10 days prior to the cut off date before the CESTAT, therefore, on 30.06.2019, in […]
Education cess was an allowable deduction while computing the income under the head profits and gains from business or profession as it did not fall within section 40(a)(ii).
Where assessee had not made full and true disclosure of all material facts during the original assessment, the reopening of the assessment was not based on the change of opinion but the facts which emanated after the rectification application was filed by assessee and it was incorrect on the part of assessee to state that the reopening of the original assessment was on assumptions and presumptions.
Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
National Spot Exchange Limited Vs Anil Kohli (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: NCLAT had rightly refused to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the NCLT and rejected the claim of the appellant as the period of 15 days which maximum could have been condoned in view […]
Dr. Sajan Hedge Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Instead of quashing the entire reassessment proceedings, it was suffice if an opportunity was provided to assessee to submit additional objections, if any, based on the materials relied on by assessee to AO, within a stipulated period and on receipt of the same, AO should be […]
The FIR against the ex-director of IL&FS was quashed as when SFIO was probing the case, no other investigative agency was empowered to investigate into the affairs of IL & FS and its subsidiary companies for any offences under the Companies Act but the same did not allow a clean chit to assessee herein, as persons who was beyond a pale of doubt.
