When the acceptor puts in a new condition while accepting the contract already signed by proposer, the contract was not complete until the proposer accepted that condition. Thus, earnest deposit of assessee was liable to be refunded on concluded contract and there could be no question of any breach on the part of assessee or of damages or any risk purchase at the cost of assessee.
M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Assessee adid not receive any amount from TSL as and by way of consignment agent or towards providing any consignment agency service under the consignment agency agreement and also, assessee had cleared the converted goods on payment of […]
No service tax was applicable on sizing operation activity as sizing of coal was an incidental and ancillary process to make coal marketable and thus complete ‘manufacture’ of coal and to make it into ‘excisable goods’ as per Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act.
Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. Vs The Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Conclusion: On discovering of technical glitches faced by assessee-company, GST Authority was directed either to open GSTN portal enabling assessee to file its application for refund in GST RFD-01 or to manually accept the application for refund pertaining to the period 2017-18 and […]
When a statutory form is created by law for redressal of grievance, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. Therefore, assessee had not only have efficacious remedy, rather alternative remedy under the GST Act, and therefore, the present petition was not maintainable.
AO had recorded incorrect, wrong and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment and also failed to verify the information received by him before recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. Thus, there was clearly non-application of mind on the part of AO to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. Thus, the reopening of assessment could not be sustained in Law.
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: The investment in Tata Sons by assessee trust was not thus for the purpose of investment in shares, but this shareholding being held by the assessee trust was undisputedly for the purpose of sharing the fruits of the success, of the Tata Group, for the benefit […]
Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Commissioner was clearly in error in invoking powers under section 263 on the ground that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the investments of the trust complying with the provisions of Section 11(5) and Section 13(1)(d) as how the trust was treating the investment, i.e., in […]
Outward freight in India except the freight for import of material distributed be not considered for adjustment as it is not operating from transaction perspective.
Respective officer was directed to dispose of complaints/FIRs filed in respect of economic offences and take appropriate action within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
