The Larger Bench (LB) of Bombay HC rules in favour of Revenue, holds that cash refund u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not permissible when CENVAT Credit on inputs remains unutilized on account of closure of manufacturing unit or inability to utilize input credit.
Revision under section 263 was invalid in case order of assessment merged with the order of Appellate CIT in its entirety as CIT did not have jurisdiction to revise such order of assessment in view of clause (c) of Expln. 1 to sub-section (1) of section 263.
Mere amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It was held that: on a final note, India’s change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact that influences the interpretation of the words defining royalty as they stand today.
Where building/developing project was completed within the time framed provided under section 80-IB(10) and an application for issuance of completion certificate was filed within time, then delay on account of the competent authority in issuing completion certificate would not deprive the assessee, the benefit of section 80-IB(10).
JSW Energy Vs Union of India and ors. (Bombay High Court) High Court not to go into merits of decision given by GST Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) Petitioner challenges the orders of the AAR and the AAAR – the AAR had held that the proposed arrangement by the applicant with JSW Steel Limited […]
Gurdeep Singh Sachar Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In the instant case, admittedly, there is no dispute that the amounts pooled in the escrow account is an ‘actionable claim’, as the same is to be distributed amongst the winning participating members as per the outcome of a game. But, as held hereinabove since […]
Aeren Foundation Trust Vs Commissioner of Central CGST (Bombay High Court) The record indicates that the order in the appeal was duly served at the office of the appellant on 20th July 2017. Even the appellant admits that the order in the appeal was so received by some staff member of the appellant Trust. Accordingly, […]
Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
CIT Vs Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer held that services of catering rendered by M/s Monginis is technical service and therefore, deduction of tax at source by the respondent has to be under Section 194J of the Act. However, in appeal both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) as well […]
CIT Vs. State Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law, in admitting the additional ground of appeal when the assessee had not raised this issue before the Assessment Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ? Tribunal has jurisdiction to […]
