In our considered opinion, the production is the same, manufacturing and the process is the same and excise duty is liable on the manufacturing, merely because in the certificate there is no mention of MS Special, the taxing statute will not be different. In view thereof, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required.
Ajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) What is to be considered is that for being granted benefit under sub-section (37) of section 10 of the Act, the land in question should have been put to agricultural use by the assessee for the preceding two years. Even if we accept the contention of the […]
The Revenue entertained a view that the amount received by the appellant in the name of facilitation fee, is commission from various shops and emporia for providing services of promoting or marketing or selling of goods provided or belonging to the emporia/shops, is liable to Service Tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ in terms of clause 19(i) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994.
In all these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.
Pr. CIT Vs Shanti Lal Jain (Rajasthan High Court) It is an admitted position that for the purpose of getting immunity from the penalty imposed under Clause 2 of explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, three conditions are required to be satisfied by the assessee. Firstly, if the assessee makes […]
Pr. CIT Vs Modern Threads (I) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) High Court held that loan which was taken was capital investment and always treated in the capital account as liability and if it is so, it will naturally go as wiping out the capital liability. Income which could be taxed under section 28(iv) must not […]
PCIT Vs Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1-4-2016, has enlarged the definition of income given under section 2 (24) by inserting sub-clause (xviii), which reads as under :– (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or […]
On the ground of investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife, in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and other judgments of different High Courts,the word used is assessee has to invest it is not specified that it is to be in the name of assessee.
CIT Vs. M/s Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Instant appeal is directed against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and indisputably the tax effect as brought to our notice, is less than Rs. 20 lac. A Circular No. 21/2015 has been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.12.2015 in exercise […]
Pushpa Rajawat Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) Since, the original proceedings were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), without entering into the question of jurisdiction of the Sawaimadhopur assessing officer, the fact remains that the adjudicating authority could not have issued second show cause notice under section 148. In that view of the matter, without entering […]
