The CESTAT New Delhi in the above cited case held that procurement of duty free goods under notification no 43/2001 is subject to condition of the use of such goods in the manufacture or processing of goods to be exported.
CESTAT held that in case of increase in the number of operating packing machines in the factory during the month on account of addition or installation of packing machines, the differential duty amount, if any, shall be paid by the 5th day of the following month.
HC held that income tax officer to whom an application is made should give an acknowledgment of having received and accepted the application on face if the same is found in prescribed manner with prescribed details.
High Courtheld that the any action of revenue to recover taxes adopting coercive means is not permissible till the assessee’s application for stay under section 220(6) of the Act is disposed of. Further, an application for stay should be disposed off by a speaking order.
Hon’ble SC held that disclosure of checked answer sheets , basis for interview marks is an information which public authority do not holds in fiduciary capacity , hence can be disclosed to information seeker.
It is been held that in case of motor vehicles the registration and sale is a co-terminus activity. Thus, the place of registration is deemed as place at which sale gets concluded. Accordingly, the sales tax has to be paid as per the law in force in the state/Union Territory at which sales so concludes.
Broker and sub-broker would be liable to face proceedings under FUTP regulations due to their deliberate ignorance of constant suspicious trading transactions executed on the behalf of clients. In the present case, the brokers executed transaction on behalf of their clients in illiquid scrip in short span of time that too for a long period of time.
Kerala High Court held that levy of service tax on admission to amusement facilities do not result into any trenching of Union Parliament on power conferred on State as two aspects taxed by respective legislatures are ‘service’ and ‘amusement’ and no law is invalid in taxing its respective aspect even when same activity being getting taxed twice under two different laws.
The Jaipur bench of ITAT in the above cited case held that the assessee is only expected to produce the documentary evidences regarding the transaction and identity of the persons from whom it has accepted the deposits.
HC held that application software is an aid in the business operations rather than the tool itself. Therefore, the payment for such application software, though there is an enduring benefit, does not result in acquisition of any capital asset and it merely enhances the productivity or efficiency and hence, has to be treated as revenue expenditure.
