Since there was no response by the appellant at any stage either when the cheques were issued, or after the presentation to its banker, or after the legal notices were served informing the appellant that both the cheques on being presented to its banker were returned with a note that it could not be honoured because of “insufficient funds” and there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration, therefore, the High Court had not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed under Section 138 under its impugned judgment.
Amount of income which qualifies for deduction is the profits of the business of the undertaking and not any income earned by assessee de hors the business of the undertaking. If the relevant items of income are held to be falling under the head `Income from other sources’, the same will not qualify for deduction under sectio 10A, 10AA.
Where AO had estimated value of accommodation entries devoid of any documentary evidences or material, the same could not be sustained. Since in the case of the assessee the payment of Rs.6,43,406/- was considered as accommodation entries and it was noticed that assessee had not reconciled this payment with outstanding amount of Rs.7,91,406/- as per invoice raised for labour charges, therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of Rs.6,43,406/-.
Since it was not possible to sustain the CVD levied for ‘other program’ and if the other program was excluded from the subsidy margin determination, assessee would fall below the de minimis level. The imposition of 2.47% CVD on assessee at serial no. 8 of the notification dated January 8, 2020 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus, Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68.
Assesssee was admitted to bail linked to bank loan fraud arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court as it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused was of such character and stature that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses and there was no material on record to show that if released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence or subvert the course of justice.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Salaries and pensions were rightful entitlements of Government employees and the Government which had delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate which was 6% instead of 12%. Held: A writ […]
J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTA Delhi) Conclusion: Adjudicating Authority was directed to grant interest from the date of deposit till the date of grant of a refund at the rate of 12% per annum. Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of 60 […]
Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Since in the present case, the amendment of shipping bills by converting them into Drawback shipping bills was possible on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared for export and the benefit of […]
Where the business of assessee was discontinued and the premises had been taken over by the Bank as part of its recovery proceedings, the crisis being faced upon consequent action taken by Bank was the reasonable cause which prevented assessee from submitting the requisite information/documents on the notices issued by AO and for remaining non complied with the same.
