Assessee was entitled to set-off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the dividend income as the non-obstante clause provided in Section 115BBD(1) covered both current year loss as well as brought forward business loss, therefore, Tata Industries was eligible for set off of current year business loss against the foreign dividend income received by it.
Assessee hospital was not entitled for registration under section 12A as it was charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients and it had failed to demonstrate that the charges / fee charged by it were on a reasonable markup on the cost.
While quashing an order for compounding of offence, the Revenue held that the amount for the compounding of offence under the GST Act should not exceed the maximum penalty specified in the Act for such offence. Since the demand itself failed on merit and limitation there could not be demand for interest and penalties imposed could not be sustained.
Delay of 147 days in filing of appeal before NCLAT was condoned upon equity. The delay had occurred as the Appellant had challenged the Impugned Order before the High Court instead of NCLAT but on a bona fide basis and the time taken by the High Court in deciding the matter had been excluded by the NCLAT in computation of limitation.
Addition of unexplained cash based on third-party statements was not sustainable as assessee had filed all documentary evidences which had not been adversely commented by the authorities below, coupled with the fact that the authorities below had made and sustained the additions on the basis of statements of third parties which had not been made available to assessees for cross examination.
Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
Duty could not be demanded on the ground that there was absence of corroborative evidence on allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods as ,the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice, was merely on assumption and presumption, without sufficient material evidence corroborating the said allegations.
Where appellant-Revenue did not reveal that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) disclose some incriminating material on the basis of which orders under Section 153A had been passed then, no assessment under Section 153A should be made.
Additional depreciation on purchase of raw material and making packing material was manufacture as the final product was a commercially, physically and chemically different and a very important factor that the assessee had been consistently regarded as manufacture by various Government Department and Agencies.
Income tax addition could not be made under section 43CA in absence of element of transfer. When assessee was not an owner of any asset, there couldn’t be any question of transferring the same to someone else whether provisions of sec43CA was complied with or not would be a secondary issue.
