The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
The tribunal in the verdict of Shailendra H. Bhatia vs. ITO concluded that Transfer of possession with the ownership rights confer beneficial ownership which is good enough to hold the asset as capital asset
The appellant challenged the charges particularly by showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt, Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details, which were not disputed by the lower authorities.
The appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact of which the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an inquiry as the high court cannot entertain an appeal which involves only factual issue.
The appellant does not even undertake any loading operation. The primary job of the appellant, as per the contract between the appellant and the Ambuja companies, is of supervising and liasioning with the coal company
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bellsonica Auto Components India Private Limited held that services directly or indirectly used in relation to manufacture of final products are eligible for Cenvat credit.
In the present case, it was found that the input supplier supplied input accompanied with Central Excise invoice. There is no dispute of genuinity of invoice. It is clearly evident from the statement of input supplied by the transporter. In such a situation
It was held that the eligible profits are not to be subjected to the adjustment under Section 72 of the Act, and the brought forward loss from the unit eligible for the relief under Section 10B cannot be adjusted against the profits from the other units
As far as the invocation of extended period is concerned tribunal observed that improper credit taken which was detected by the department officers only. At no stage of appellant approached the department for any guidance that there was any confusion in admissibility of credit on the impugned services.
It is now settled position of law that, while considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal or the Appellate Authorities are directed to take into consideration three factors namely, prima facie case, undue hardship and the interest of Revenue.
