Once assessee has submitted documents related to identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction the onus of proving share application as bogus shifts on the revenue. If revenue fails to prove further then assessee connote be treated as bogus.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the Section 86(2) does not state as to the manner in which Committee of Commissioners have to arrive at a decision as to whether an appeal should be preferred against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. held that the Joint Venture was not an Association of Persons and could not be taxed on that basis, where the JV was formed only to secure the contract
The Delhi High Court in the case of held CIT vs. M/s. DD Industries Ltd. that when the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Jain Export Private Ltd. held that, to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), it requires proper investigation and higher satisfaction of proof, which confirmed the basis for the initiation of necessary proceedings.
Delhi High court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. held that the admission of assessee under Section 132(4) where he admitted about the possession of incriminating material would suffice to initiate the necessary proceedings.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court held that notice could not be served to transferor company after the Amalgamation have been done. As, it will be contrary to law to serve the notice to a non-existing company.
The Hon’ble High Court, in the present case held that the licence fee payable after 31st July 1999 should be treated as revenue expenditure. Similarly, if the interest was payable on license fee for the period post 31st July, 1999, it should be treated as revenue in nature.
The Hon’ble High Court held that Rule 37BA will not apply in this case as there is only minor procedural lapse and procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice.
The Hon’ble High Court in the present case held that when the assessee claimed and was granted modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time itself indicates that for purposes of excise, the assembling of cassettes amounted to manufacture.
