The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Iwi Crogenic Vaporization System India held that The non-payment of recovered tax coupled with the fact of non-furnishing of the details in respect of unpaid part in periodical returns clearly establish the intention of assesse to evade the payment of service tax recovered. Therefore, in such a case penalty levied u/s 78 is sustainable in law.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Joy Foam P. Ltd held that the input credit of inputs need not to be reversed even in case the payment of duty has been ordered to be remitted under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. held that completed cannot be reopened after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the income escaped from tax is attributable to assessee’s failure to disclose full & true disclosure of the facts.
The CESTAT New Delhi in the case of P&P Overseas held that the realization of export sale proceeds within a definite time-frame is not a pre-condition for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004 .
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd concluded that the provision for losses in the ordinary course of business can be allowed if the provisions are made on scientific basis. Thus, the provision in respect of breakage losses is allowable as the same have been measured scientifically taking into account the past business experience.
Automated excel utility for calculating depreciation as per Companies Act,2013(Schedule II). Features of the utility: 1.It can calculate individual asset WDV as on 01.04.2014 as well as current year depreciation. 2.It is useful for SLM method and only for other than specific industries (i,.e. for SME only) 3.Compatible in MS Office 2010 and upwards only. […]
The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income making assessee liable to face penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Khaitan held that In the absence of change in system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by the department, the department cannot take different stand for the subsequent years.
ITAT Lucknow in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Northern Tannery held that The commission paid to the non- resident agent for procuring order and recovering payments on the behalf of assessee could not be treated
Delhi High Court in the case of Maithon Power Ltd. vs. CIT held that The expenditure incurred to set up operations forms the part of capital work in progress and thus, the subsequent reimbursement of any part thereof would be a capital receipt which will get reduced from the amount capitalized under the capital WIP.
