HC held that as SC having struck down Rule 96 ZP of Central Excise Rules in toto, the question of sustaining penalty imposed thereunder against Appellant does not arise.
Mahimananda Mishra Vs ACIT (Orissa High Court) A plain reading of ection 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of […]
CIT/PCIT Vs Paradeep Port Trust (Orissa High Court) The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court […]
Court quashes order issued by Department rejecting SVLDR applications of Petitioner since they are based on an erroneous interpretation of not only SVLDR Scheme but also Section 125(1)(h) of Finance Act.
R.K. Industries Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) The factual finding by the JCST was that the reopening of the assessment was done by the AO by simply accepting the objection of the AG (Audit) without forming independent opinion on whether such objection by the AG (Audit) was correct or not. There was no […]
As regards the deletion of addition of Rs.57 crores under the head of ‘interest accrued on investment on Capital Asset, Replacement Reserve Fund and Development, Repayment of Loan and Contingencies Reserve Fund’, it is pointed out that the Assessee has two statutory reserve funds viz., (i) Replacement, Rehabilitation, Modernization of Capital Assets Reserve and (ii) Reserve for Development, Repayment of Loans and Contingencies.
Surcharge under Section 5A of OST Act is to be levied before deducting entry tax paid by dealer pursuant to Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999.
Pendency of arrear tax and penalty under Odisha Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 or Tax Recovery Proceeding or audit dues (IR) or VCR/E-challan or Prosecution Report shall not be a bar for cancellation of certificate or registration under Section 55 of MV Act.
Tribunal will examine whether the audit assessment is invalid on account of the delay in submission of the AVR in terms of Section 9-C (5) of the OET Act and in light of the decision of this Court in M/s. Chandrakanta Jayantilal, Cuttack
Court is unable to find any valid explanation offered by Department in delaying in issuing initial SCN under Section 11A of CE Act, 4 years after the period of demand and then, more importantly, taking 16 years to retrieve the matter from Call Book
