Pigments & Allieds Vs Carboline (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, on a fair reading of provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as applicable in Maharashtra, it is evident under definition 2(d) that the agreement in question was required to be stamped when it was first executed. The agreement was first […]
Kalaivani Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ITAT observed that PCIT himself admits that there are different views possible on claim of deduction u/s.80IA and issue is highly debatable. Once the issue is highly debatable no revision is possible invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Hence, we quash the revision order passed […]
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Inox Leisure Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court upheld the order of CESTAT and held that Service Tax is not payable by Appellant on Screening films in their multiplex on Revenue Sharing basis. Earlier CESTAT held that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for Screening of […]
The appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee and not to dismiss it for default.
ACIT Vs Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee submitted that the advances written off is not a capital loss as it is written off as security deposits against the shops obtained on rent. Such write off of security deposits was incidental to the business of the assessee and was for running its operations. […]
ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming exemption under section 54 Date on which possession is by the Assessee should be taken as the date of purchase and further section only require Assessee to purchase/Construct a residential house within the specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant.
Court held has held that the principle of vicarious liability can not be extended indefinitely. In the present case also to force the owner of the conveyance to pay the tax, penalty and fine on the goods would mean that the owner of the conveyance is also foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods despite the proviso engrafted on to Sub Section 2 of Section 130 of the Act.
Prashanthi Affiliates Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court ought not to have issued the order of attachment of property through BBMP Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought […]
Associated Soap Stone Distributing Company Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the issue to be decided is that the service in question is classifiable under the category of Site Formation and clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition service as contended by the revenue or under the category of […]
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & GST (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that they had purchased a generator set in the year 2004 which was used by them at their Jaipur plant. After 12 years of its use, since the Jaipur plant got closed that the said […]
