Conclusion: Arrears of property tax and water tax until the date of confirmation of sale, i.e., 04.07.2003, would qualify as the expenses for “preserving, realising or getting in” the assets of the company and thus, should have to be paid in priority by the appellant OL.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
No addition could be made to an undisclosed contract receipt from the business of purchase and sale of fish as to some extent, the uniform rate of 8% available in Section 44AD applicable on some contractor was not to be applied on every time on every type of business. AO was directed to take an estimated income at 4% and credit of income disclosed by assessee was to be given
Assessees could not claim cost of improvement and indexation cost as assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted.
Conclusion: Issue regarding claim of depreciation could not be decided until dispute regarding capitalization of expenses in assessment order was decided. Therefore, the same was restored to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee,
The goods imported such as main PCB, lightning protector, DC/AC cables, fuse holders are neither parts nor accessories of Integrated Fixed Wireless Telephones ( IFWT )could not be considered as accessory as these parts were not used to increase the effectiveness or convenience of IFWT. Therefore, the goods imported were neither parts nor accessories of IFWT and therefore could not avail the benefit of notification for Customs duty exemption.
Refund claim seeking refund of the excess additional duty of customs paid during the period 26.03.2015 to 22.06.2015 was rightly sanctioned as there was no error on the part of either the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning the refund without considering the limitation as both authorities were bound by the order of the Delhi High Court.
CIDCO were the best judge to consider compliance with technical and financial conditions. MSETCL was consulted by CIDCO, both on account of the fact that the project had been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. Therefore, the order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
Assessee-company had not accepted the enhancement of the value as they had requested for passing a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further viewed that Commissioner (Appeals) had not adduced any evidence in support of his finding that assessee had accepted the enhancement of the value of the goods, therefore, assessee should be given sufficient opportunity for presenting their defence and also personal hearing be given before passing a speaking order.
The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
