The present tax appeals have been field by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat -II under sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to raise the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a substantial error of law in reducing the penalty on the respondent from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 20 lakhs ?” 2. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. R.
The photography films, printing papers, chemicals and envelopes are the integral and essential ingredients to complete the process of photography. Meaning thereby, the components of sale of photography, developing and printing etc. are clearly distinct and discernible than that of photography service. Therefore, we are of the view that as the photography
We have prefaced the discussion on provisos with the object of putting the real controversy in its true perspective. The orders passed by the Chief Commissioner are identical in all these cases and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the following substantive questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:
S. 10(23C)(vi) provides that the income of any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit shall be exempt. The assessee was running a school solely for educational purposes and claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi).
Delhi High Court in the case of Messe Dusseldorf India Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2010-TIOL- 74-HC-DEL-IT] dismissing a writ petition, held that in cases where a taxpayer has not been provided an opportunity of being heard by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the taxpayer is entitled to raise all objections and furnish necessary evidence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)
In AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) of Rs. 3.85 crs which was allowed by the AO vide s. 143 (3) order. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year on the ground that the claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) included ineligible items of other income such ’society deposit’,
it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of writ petition no.2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions
Therefore, since the writ petitions are now dismissed and liberty has been granted to approach the Department, the petitioners granted four weeks time to approach the concerned authority under the provisions of the Act seeking for appropriate remedy. Till such time, the respondents shall not initiate
When an assessee purchases the spare parts for the existing machineries, same cannot be treated as capital expenditure and it has to be treated as revenue expenditure since these spare parts are purchased for the maintenance of the existing equipments.
The Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL42-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of CIT v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (Taxpayer) which held that the difference between forward rate and exchange rate prevailing on the date of entering into forward contracts is fully allowable as deduction even if the
