Cenvat credit on common inputs eligible only in terms of rule 6 when excisable & exempted products are manufactured. Credit can be availed only in terms of rule 6(3) and reversal of pro rata credit not permissible. Judgment of Chandrapur Magnet distinguished by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
S. 254 (2A) empowers the Tribunal to grant stay of recovery of demand for a period not exceeding 365 days. The 3rd Proviso to s. 254(2A) inserted by the Finance Act 2008 provides that if there is a delay in disposing of the appeal within the said period, the order of stay shall stand vacated even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
In a recent judgment of Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited vs. Bajaj Auto Limited, the Bombay High Court has held (among other things) that in case of a “public company”, its shares are freely transferrable under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) even if the Articles of Association (the Articles) contain restrictive provisions relating to transfer of shares.
the agreement was on a principal to principal basis, (ii) the manufacturer had his own establishment where the product was manufactured, (iii) the materials required in the manufacture of the article or thing was obtained by the manufacturer from a person other than the assessee and (iv) the property in the articles passes only upon the delivery of the product manufactured, the contract was one of “sale” and there was no obligation to deduct tax u/s 194C. The fact that the assessee imposed restrictions on the manufacturer as to quality of the goods, user of trade marks etc are merely matters of business expediency.
ection 147 provides that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 163 assess or re assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently
The only other argument advanced was in respect of the penalty and interest imposed in so far as assessment year 1987-88 is concerned relying on the judgment in the case of Rohitkumar. The returns were filed only after the seizure of the incriminating material. The issue of whether penalty or interest could be levied was in issue in proceedings for adjudication. In the instant case, the levy of penalty or interest including for the Assessment Year 1987-88 has not been challenged and has become final.
Sub section (1) of Section 73 provides that the loss in respect of a speculation business can be set off only against the profits and gains of another speculation business. Sub section (2) of Section 73 enables an assessee to carry forward the loss arising out of a speculation business which has not been set off e their wholly or partly under the provisions of sub section (1)
Of the three years, the CIT granted stay for two years and directed the AO to realize the demand for AY 2010-11 amounting to Rs. 7.69 crores. No reasons were given for the decision. Despite the stay granted by the CIT, the AO issued garnishee notices u/s 226 (3) for the entire amount of Rs. 59.06 crores. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge the same. HELD allowing the Petition:
assessee therefore, cannot be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction under s. 263. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the CIT, passed under s. 263, directing the AO to include the sum of Rs. 1,75,32,600 in the total income of the assessee under s. 41(1), in the previous year, relevant to asst. yr. 1982-83
One Bench of the Tribunal decided an appeal in favour of the assessee. However, another Bench refused to follow that decision even though the facts were the same on the ground that the earlier decision did not address the grievance of the Revenue and did not consider all the facts and did not lay down a clear ratio
