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 […]
1. These appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in law to hold that the provisions of Section 194J is not applicable in respect of the payments made to M/s. Valuefirst Messaging Pvt. Ltd. for providing SMS services as […]
On allowing appeals by the Revenue and / or rejection of Cross Objections filed by the assessee, the assessee moved an application seeking reference of following two questions of law for decision of this court
Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. The Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when the return was filed.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd has allowed a tenants’ claim for depreciation towards capital expenditure incurred on the leased premises.
The only question is whether the guarantee commission paid to the bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility and loan from financial institutions for the purpose of machinery and equipments is revenue expenditure. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd (supra) was dealing precisely with the said issue, wherein, […]
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
