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.
Service of notice through registered post was proper service of notice and there was no requirement to serve notice under certificate of posting as there was no rebuttal evidence to show that the complainant has deliberately and intentionally sent the legal notice to the wrong address and the accused was not working at the place and address shown in the registered envelope.
Residential accommodation for nuns and hostels for students which were attached to various educational institutions could claim property tax exemption under Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
Demand notice demanding duty to the tune of Rs.25,03,414/- on the basis of bill of entries filed for imported second hand equipment on the ground that assessee had contravened the provisions of DFSECC Scheme benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 54/2003 was not sustainable as after issuance of demand notice, no steps had been taken by Authorities in furtherance of the aforesaid notice and almost after 11 years, assessee would be justified in forming a bonafide belief that the demand notice must have been dropped.
Addition of amount representing 15% of sale proceeds deducted by the Monetary committee from e-auction sale of mineral stock belonging to assessee and which was contributed to Special Purpose Vehicle, as per the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court was justified as the same constituted trading receipts in the hands of assessee, but at the same time it was allowable as deduction u/s 37(1).
Addition of sum paid to Tata Sons Limited towards subscription paid for Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement was not justified as the said payment was made annually on a recurring basis for business purpose and the same was allowable as a revenue expense.
Once the books of account of assessee were rejected for want of supporting vouchers and details then the income of assessee was required to be estimated thus, there were no error or illegality in the impugned order of CIT(A) in estimating the income of assessee by applying N.P. at 1% which was a reasonable and justified.
