ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court) While disposing of these Petitions with the above clarifications, we may note that these Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members […]
Validity of Reassessment Notice under section 148-Where approval of Addl. CIT was not obtained to reopen the assessment, rather it was obtained from CIT, the same was in breach of section 151.
Shafi Khan Khokhar Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court) High Court upholds jurisdiction of Mumbai CGST Commissionerate even in case where parallel proceedings were commenced in Jaipur Facts: During the period of dispute, the assessee, an individual, was subjected to enquiry proceedings under CGST Act, initiated by the Commissionerate at Mumbai. He […]
Bombay High Court has held that it was within the discretion of the assessee whether to utilize Cenvat credit at one of its unit or distribute it amongst other units providing output The High Court however dismissed appeal observing that the entire exercise was revenue neutral as distribution of Cenvat credit to various units would result in lesser service tax being paid by them.
Bombay High Court has held that time consumed by the concerned Ministry in granting certificates required for retrospective exemption and refund must be ignored.
Goods in question were never received by the assessee in its factory and therefore, the assessee’s claim of having consumed the same was not genuine.
It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant is reimbursing the freight amount to their consignees to the extent freight is paid by the consignee. Besides, it was also found that the appellant was also issuing credit notes for reimbursement of freight charges. Thus, the case of the Revenue is that the freight is ultimately paid by the appellant i.e. the consignor even in the cases where invoices show balance freight amount to be paid by the consignee-dealer.
Bombay High Court has held that rough and ready formula as formulated by CESTAT regarding availability of Cenvat credit on guest houses, that credit was available only on guest houses situated near the manufacturing unit, was not entirely satisfactorily.
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. M/s. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) 1. This Appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 15 September 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 2. The Revenue in […]
