Tatia Sky Line & Health Farms Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Expenses incurred by assessee for Public Issue was not allowable as revenue expenditure as assessee miserably failed to establish the tenability and truthfulness of its claim that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Held: Assessee, a public limited company, was in the […]
Carbon Credit was not an offshoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business, but it was generated due to environmental concerns. Therefore, income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Custom Authority had allowed the clearance of Pigeon Peas as there was valid registration of Advance Payment Certificate and registration certificate was binding on the respondents until the completion of the import quota mentioned therein and considering that assessee had imported the import item before 31.03.2021, assessee’s import was required to be declared as valid import under the FTP.
S. R. Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Search proceedings had been rightly initiated as assessee had nothing to fear, they could as well place all the materials before AO for consideration and more so, the jurisdictional facts exist for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A as well as Section 153C of the Act. […]
Fairdeal Supplies Limited & Anr.Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) (i) On a plain reading of Section 2(1)(y) and Section 3 of the PMLA , it appears to me that the legislature has bifurcated the offence under PMLA into “Scheduled Offence” and “Offence of money-laundering”. “Scheduled Offence” are provided in Part A […]
M/s. Accoladee Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Brief: Conversion of the shipping bill from ‘drawback shipping bills to drawback-cum-advance authorization’ shipping bills. It is revealed that the advance authorization licence taken by the petitioner is not disputed. Our Comments: In the present case, petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of garments. In the […]
Bala Ji Manpower Services Vs. Union of India & others (High Court Of Punjab & Haryana) The only question that requires adjudication is at what rate petitioner is liable to pay interest i.e. 15% or 24%. Admittedly, the petitioner firm started its service after completing registration formalities in July, 2011 and the respondents have calculated […]
Rakesh Malhotra Vs Government of National Capital Territory of India and Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. Last night, we had passed the order in W.P .(C) No. 4970/2021 on the assurance given by the learned Solicitor General, that Delhi would be provided with Medical Oxygen as per its allocation made on 21.04.2021 —with effect from […]
Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court) A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or […]
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
