Though the name of the respondent assessee is distinct in each of these Appeals, it is agreed that the Revenue is proposing similar questions in all of them. These Appeals of the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and taking a view that the grounds raised are covered, in majority of the cases, by the earlier order of the Tribunal.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which directed a probe into the ‘cartelisation’ charge leveled against Vodafone India, Idea Cellular and Bharti Airtel Limited, by Reliance Jio.
A educational coaching is covered by the expression coaching centre as defined in section 65(26) and (27). That it is not on commercial basis or predominantly for profit is the only argument canvassed throughout.
Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Parle Bisleri Ltd. that Procedural rules cannot be ignored even litigant is Government/ Revenue and Revenue should not follow tendency of blaming Advocate or procedural rules for dismissal of appeal
Advisory services provided by CRISIL does not fall under category of Management Consultancy Services and is correctly classified under the Banking and other Financial Services.
S. 68: Argument that the assessee did not maintain books of account and so s. 68 will not apply is not acceptable. It is incumbent on every assessee doing business to maintain proper books of account. It may be in any form. If the assessee has not done so, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Burden lies on the assessee to show from where he has received the amount and what is its nature
We are disposing of the above Appeals preferred by the Revenue by this common order and judgment. The above Appeals have challenged the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short Appellate Tribunal) dated 3rd February 2016 in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2017 and 11st January 2016 in Central Excise Appeal No. 27 of 2017 respectively.
Promotion or Increase in salary in a private Establishment is a managerial Function and cannot be claimed to be a condition of service in the Absence of any such policy : High court of Bombay
We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that a party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables, a company, if the same is found to have been included on account of mistake as on facts, it is not comparable. The Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and un controlled transactions.
Bombay High Court held that Interest on interim compensation received pending final disposal by the High Court is income if there is no direction given by the Court. The source of funds to earn income cannot determine the taxability of the income earned on the capital amount which has been invested. This in the absence […]
