Union government must now take all expeditious steps to ensure that filing by the Union government of all appeals and proceedings before the High Courts as well as the revenue tribunals, including the CESTAT and the ITAT should take place in the e-filing mode.
Supreme Court granted bail in clandestine manufacture and supply of chewing tobacco without payment of leviable duties and tax as the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months. Further, there are no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing.
Bar member challenges VP appointments at Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. High Court dismisses quo warranto petition. Legal eligibility affirmed.
Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated July 1, 2002, issued by CBEC clarifying the doubts regarding Valuation Rules with respect to goods when sold partly to related persons and partly to independent buyers, is not violative of Central Excise Act 1994 and Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000.
The Income Tax Act, 1961 deals essentially with the imposing of taxes, exemptions and procedure to be followed therewith. The income that is accrued or deemed to accrue on the tax payer is the tax income and the application and diversion of income are two fundamental yet confusing concepts in the Indian Tax law. Also, both of these are court made concepts.
Supreme Court held that advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the assets would certainly amount to utilization of the capital gains for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets and accordingly capital gain exemption available.
Supreme Court held that the existence of an alternate remedy by itself cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution.
State of Jharkhand Vs Linde India Limited (Supreme Court of India) Whether oxygen which is used in the production of steel can be said to be a raw material and thus eligible for concessional rate of tax @ 1% instead of normal rate of 3% under the Bihar Finance Act. An interesting issue arose in […]
Supreme Court held that period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be applied while calculating period of limitation for claiming rebate of duty under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rebate claim rejected as filed beyond period of limitation of one year of relevant date
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the dispute was pending for Mutual Agreement Procedure [MAP] resolution which subsequently came to be culminated in the year 2012 and the liability to pay the tax thereafter arose and therefore the petitioner shall be entitled to the waiver of interest under Section 220(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
