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.
CIT Vs. Mechmen (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In this case court observed that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C which is a fact decided by ITAT. No paper or document was seized against the assessee in the search operation.
In the case of CCE&C vs. M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and no subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing
CCEC v. Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- Mere cutting of jumbo rolls of paper into smaller sizes and printing thereon by job-worker resulting into ‘printed cork tipping paper’ does amount to ‘manufacture’ for purpose of charging excise duty.
CCCE&S Vs. M/s TPSC (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh HC)- Contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal ought not to have granted absolute waiver and also stay of recovery without imposing any condition, does not merit any consideration in the facts of the case.
Provision of section 147 states that revenue can reopen an assessment within four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year in which return was filed, if any income escaped from assessment. If revenue wants to reopen an assessment after the expiry of four years prescribed then there must be failure on part of assessee to disclose fully
Whether tribunal was right in allowing appeal of the assessee holding that the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits with the bank and other interest income are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA.
A.O. was not convinced by the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to share capital received from six applicants and a sum of Rs.24 lacs was added u/s 68 of the Act. Appeal filed with CIT was rejected on the ground of assessee inability to explain the identity
Held that it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. Since the petitioner has already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in the midst of hearing of appeal
Assessee had given the loan to the associate enterprise in U.S.D. and in such a situation when the transaction was in foreign currency, and the transaction was an international transactions, then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to international transactions.
