Disallowance under section 36(1)(va) on account to late deposit of employees contribution of provident fund was justified as employees contribution retained its character as income by virtue of section 2(24)(x) unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) were satisfied i.e. depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date.
Utilisation of capital gains within time specified would entitle assessee to claim deduction under section 54, notwithstanding fact that new asset was registered beyond period specified under section 54, which according to assessee was beyond her control and was to be liberally construed.
Since none of the orders of the authorities below was at any discussion or finding regarding mensrea or unlawful gain to the appellant or attributing any knowledge on his part, therefore, the orders denying the duty exemption benefit and confirmed the differential duty of Rs.26,12,902/- with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.26,12,902/- along with interest under Section 114A was merely proceed on basis of speculations which was not justified.
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.
