Bhumika Enterprises Vs Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr In a major relief to VAT dealers in the State of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi has quashed the system generated assessment orders issued by the VATO.
High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Mahajan that the income or profits as ascertained and determined by the assessee himself cannot always be accepted as correct because it is the duty of the A.O. to consider whether the books disclose the true state of accounts and whether the correct
Delhi High Court held in CIT Vs DLF Universal Ltd held that If assessee got hundi from its suppliers and get it discounted from the bank ,then the discounting charges paid by the assessee would be treated as a revenue expense;
CEAT Limited V/s CCE&C( Bombay High Court)- If the liability to pay interest between the time or the period of provisional assessment and payment of differential duty until the final assessment has to be read in the Rule, that is not possible.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. it has been held by Goa High Court held that where non-payment of duty is not with an intent to evade of payment then there can be no occasion to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. it was held that Rule 9 is a procedural aspect which cannot deny the claim of the respondents to avail of such CENVAT Credit which they are, otherwise, admittedly, entitled to and hence CENVAT credit is allowed on the basis of TR-6 challan.
Delhi High Court In the case of Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs DIT (Exemptions) held that Assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act if its activities are outside the scope of its objects, even if its activities are charitable in nature.
In the case of CIT Vs. MGF Automobiles Ltd., Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the additions could have been made by the AO only if some incriminating document was found during search.
Kolkatta High court held Shyam Burlap Company Ltd Vs CIT that as the assesse’s main business is purchasing, developing and letting out of property. The same was mentioned in the object clause of memorandum of the company.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd., it has been held by Goa High Court that it is not permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum.
