Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: The order in respect of the core issue was the insertion of ‘actual user’ condition stipulated under Application Form ANF2B for import authorization in the two licences, whether such insertion was legally permissible or without entering into this […]
Qualcomm India Private Limited Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Once there was delay in payment of refund within three months from the date of receipt of application, rigors of section 11BB set in and payment of interest on the delayed refund became obligatory. Non-granting of interest in such a case […]
Since in the financial statement for the relevant year (F.Y. 11-12), the auditor had made a clear disclosure that no revenue had been recognized on account of services rendered to SBI despite having incurred a cost of Rs. 3.2 crore and moreover, as per the matching ‘principl
Reassessment made by AO in respect of assessee-bank was quashed as no new material was brought on record by AO in the reopening of assessment to establish that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment as assessee had already disclosed all the information necessary for completion of original assessment and the reopening of assessment made beyond four years from the AY under consideration.
Addition made on account of AMP expenses qualified as an ‘international transaction’ under the terms of section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v) was not justified as AMP Expenses did not qualify as an ‘international transaction’ for the purposes of section 92B firstly, there was no international transaction in the form of any agreement or arrangement on AMP expenditure incurred by assessee company; and secondly, under FAR analysis also, no such benefit from the AMP expenditure having any kind of bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets as accrued to the AE or any kind of benefit has arisen to the AE.
Any material collected at the back of assessee or any statement recorded under section 131 at the back of assessee could not be read in evidence against assessee, unless same was confronted to assessee and that assessee should be allowed to cross-examine to such statements.
Whether the time limit prescribed for filing refund claim of SAD paid by the importer is one year in terms of Notification No. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD shall be applicable or not needs to be referred to the Larger Bench of Tribunal.
Since AO passed the assessment order and accepted the return filed by assessee after examining the issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and the capital gain from sale of flats and had reflected that same in its capital account, therefore, CIT had exceeded jurisdiction under section 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on the issues which were not the subject matter of the AO’s limited scrutiny.
Since assessee had exercised option in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and once this fact was established from the materials on record, there could be no demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and also nowhere it was mentioned that an assessee should pay any amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
When the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assesseee on the very same day on which assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 stating that the return already filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148, such notice issued u/s 143(2) on the very same day had to be treated as invalid and assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO.
