divyarathi's Posts - Page 4

Demand for Cost Recovery Charges was non sustainable

Goodearth Maritime Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Since no services were being specially provided by the customs officials to the custodians at a customs port or customs airport, to enable them to collect any fee, from such a custodian thus, High Court not only set-aside the demand of Cost Recovery charges but even held that Regulation 5(2) of Regulation 2009 was illegal....

Read More

Membership & Subscription charges deductible as preliminary expenditure

Phillip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Service fees and membership & subscription fees were incurred for the purpose of business and to set up a transaction meant for overseas capital market, therefore, this expenditure could be treated preliminary expenditure for the purpose of business. ...

Read More

SC: Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel not applicable on subsequent industrial policies

Union of India & Another Vs V.V.F Limited & Another (Supreme Court)

Subsequent notifications/industrial policies  were issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they did not take away any vested rights conferred un...

Read More

Use of & downloading of C Forms allowed to purchase PNG & Liquor Products

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs Ramco Cements Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Use of and online facility for downloading C Forms for inter-state purchase of petroleum crude, diesel, petrol, aviation turbine fuel, natural gas and liquor should not be restricted as if sale of the goods was the only criteria of registration under the CST Act, the consequent amendments would not have allowed concessional rate of tax fo...

Read More

No quantum Section 68 addition in case concealment penalty was deleted

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs ITO (Supreme Court of India)

Even though assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases during the assessment proceedings, he filed affidavits and statements of the dealers in penalty proceedings and appellate authority had not only accepted the explanation offered by assessee but also recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no concealment of incom...

Read More

Rejection of documents amounts to ‘Prejudicial to Interest of Revenue’ if AO taken one of the possible views

The Dynasty Vs The State of Assam (Gauhati High Court)

The Dynasty Vs The State of Assam (Gauhati High Court) Conclusion:  Where two views were possible, an interference by an appellate or a revisional court would be unwarranted merely because the other view appeared to be more attractive, thus, no interference was required in the judgment of the Assam Board of Revenue in respect of the [&h...

Read More

Order of attachment of property purchased using proceeds of crime cannot be violative of right to property under Constituition

Triad Trading Services P. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)

A person who has purchased the  property using proceeds of crime cannot said to have any interest in the property and the protection under Article 300 A cannot be pressed into service by a perpetrator of a crime. Mere order of attachment could not be said to be violative of the constitutional right to property of the Article 300 A of the...

Read More

Expenses incurred on sponsorship and endorsement was not includible in transaction value of imports

Commissioner of Customs Vs Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)

Sponsorship and endorsement expenses paid by Adidas India to various athletes and players in India were not includable in the assessable value of the goods imported by Adidas India by invoking rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007....

Read More

Order passed by CESTAT without considering case on merits should be re-considered

Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Sea Queen Shipping Services (Madras High Court)

Since there was absolutely no material that Revenue had failed in strictly adhering the limitation period under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 and it was not the Revenue, who kept the file, without passing the final order under Regulation 20(7) within the 90 days limitation period and it had been kept pending only at the instance of the R...

Read More

No section 68 addition can be made on the basis of mere statements

Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Addition made u/s. 68 only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law, was not justified and therefore, the addition could not be sustained as per law. Held: AO got information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search operation conducted at [&...

Read More