The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage. During the financial year 1999- 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40% could be earned if investments
Supreme Court held that Looking to the amount of tax involved in this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on merits. In all such cases where there is delay on the part of the Department, we request the High Court to consider imposing costs but certainly it should examine the cases on merits and should not dispose of cases merely on the ground of delay, particularly when huge stakes are involved.
Central Excise – SSI Exemption – Use of another person’s brand name – Not entitled for exemption: It is manifest from a bare reading of Clause 4 of the Notification, read with Explanation IX that it clearly debars an assessee from the benefit of exemption under the notification, if he uses another person’s brand or trade name with the intention of indicating a connection between the assessee’s goods and such other person. It is evident that the object of the exemption notification is to grant benefits only to those industries which otherwise do not have the advantage of brand or trade name. In order to avail of the benefit of the exemption notification, the assessee must establish that his product is not associated with some other person: if it is shown that the assessee has affixed the brand name of another person on his goods with the intention of indicating a connection between the assessee’s goods and the goods of another person, using such name or mark, then the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption notification; if the assessee is able to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that there was no such intention, or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous, it would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption
A person who was convicted for an offence and removed from service cannot claim backwages even if he was acquitted later, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Corp Mithilesh vs Union of India. Merely because he is acquitted, he is not entitled to backwages and other consequential benefits, the court said.
The Supreme Court last week stated that goods and services hired for commercial purposes cannot be the subject matter of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It set aside the judgment of the National Consumer Commission in the case
Full Bench: whether MAT credit admissible in terms of Section 115JAA has to be set off against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating interest under Sections 234A, B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no provision under Section 115JAA which postpones the right of the assessee to claim set off to the determination of the total income by the A.O. in the first assessment year. Entitlement right to claim set off is different from the quantum quantification.
The brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid issue are that the Respondent imported Crude Palm Stearin through Kakinada Port and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Parle Bisleri Ltd challenging the ruling against it by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an excise dispute over its soft drink flavours and the use of their brand names. Apart from Parle Bisleri, two others involved were Parle Exports Ltd and Parle International Ltd. Parle Bisleri claimed excise benefits as a small scale industry in the 1990’s. The claim was rejected by the tribunal. It appealed to the Supreme Court, which stated that the tribunal was right in denying the benefit by clubbing the products of the three companies. The court said: “the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management… It would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer disputed questions. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the tribunal,which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this court.”
The Supreme Court has set aside the penalty demanded by the excise authorities from Pepsi Foods Ltd because there was no intentional default on the part of the company. But the court overruled the excise tribunal on the question of inclusion of freight charges between Pepsi factory and Frito-Lay India.
Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract; any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods
