Addition made on account of under-invoicing of sales to sister concern was not justified unless and until export sales to sister concern were sham transaction.
The declaration of Court in para 53(iv) of MBA-III should prevail and the term of Chairperson of a Tribunal shall be five years or till she or he attains the age of 70 years, whichever was earlier and the term of Member of a Tribunal should be five years or till she or he attained the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier.
Smt. Sushma Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Penalty against a Late Customs Inspector for the charges for abetment for fraudulent export of goods was deleted as there was no evidence produced by the department which might prove that assessee ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided Shri Sajjan Kumar to fraudulently export the hand […]
All the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the Company’s approved resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date the Adjudicating Authority was granting its approval under Section 31 could be continued.
When the Commission itself categorically made a finding that it was not possible to settle the matter and documents and evidences were to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, then there was no much scope for the High Court to interfere with the orders passed and by sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, assessee would also get an opportunity to produce all the documents and evidences to establish his case. Thus, sssessee had not established any acceptable reasons for the purpose of interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
AO was justified in treating the payment to ROC for increase in capital as capital expenditure as ROC expenses was fees for enhancement of capital.
When the settlement with regard to a dispute between the parties was not arrived at under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council should take up the dispute for arbitration under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or it might refer to institution or Centre to provide alternate dispute resolution services and provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 were made applicable as if there was an agreement between the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act.
Reliance Globalcom Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Standby Maintenance Charges received by assessee from TCL could not be assessed as FTS and was its “business income‟ that was taxable only to the extent of its reference to the “business connection” in India. Turnover (receipts) of Standby Maintenance Charges from TCL i.e attributable to the […]
Krishna Kishore Singh Vs Sarla A. Saraogi (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Plaintiff i.e., Sushant Singh father had failed to satisfy the three-pronged test for grant of pre-emptory injunction to restrain exhibition of the films and defendant had filed numerous documents to show that the said film was being publicized and promoted since August, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff […]
Assessee was entitled to alternative claim of exemption on export of software and IT enabled service under section 10A by following the decision in case of 2020 (113) taxmann.com 74 (SC) [Commissioner of Income-Tax III v. Mphasis Ltd.]
