Addition under Section 153A could not be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of a search conducted under Section 132. In case no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, AO could not reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.
Cenvat Credit on Input or Capital Goods could not be denied merely for showing tubes and flaps separately in invoices. Moreover, tubes and flaps were used in the manufacture of the tyres and as such qualify to be “inputs” given the definition given under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004.
Compensation received for non-carrying of business was capital in nature as the operation of non- compete agreement was for 10 years and for the period in which the non-compete agreement was to operate, assessee’s source of income had been clamped.
Customs duty demand on the undervaluation of plastic granules or flakes of powder was quashed in the absence of corroborative evidence and the value declared by assessee was correct being a transaction value and therefore, no addition could be made.
Madras High Court quashes the cancellation of a GST registration due to the department’s failure to inform the taxpayer. Get the full judgment details.
Appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC was set aside as there was no material to prove the existence of common intention which was the necessary ingredient of Section 34 of IPC.
Admission fees paid to a club towards corporate membership would be a revenue expenditure because it had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and not towards capital account.
Since assessee could not explain how the expenses which were claimed by assessee in the closing stock was allowable i.e., provision in regard to freight expenses payable and labour charges payable.
A proprietorship firm and the partnership firm even though the said proprietor was one of the partner in the partnership firm, both could not be a related person under section 2(41) of the Companies Act,1956.
Assessee was denied travel permission as it was a case related to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) on 115 crores money laundering Case and assessee was seeking permission to travel abroad was allegedly to undergo, “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy which was widely available in India, therefore, there was no ground to consider the prayer for travel abroad of assessee.
