Excise Duty : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest ...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 385 of IPC pertaining to extortion as...
Corporate Law : Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice u...
Corporate Law : Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transform...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely ...
In the Case of the Dasrathbhai Narandas Patel v ITO, ITAT-Ahmedabad held that the assessment Proceedings are completely different from Penalty Proceedings and before initiating the penalty proceedings there should be some convincing and corroborative evidence.
In the case of Coperion Ideal Private Limited v. CIT, Delhi High Court while giving the decision in the favour of the assessee, held that there should be some tangible material available with the Revenue, whenever they want to conclude that Assessee have escaped Assessment.
The Delhi High Court held in the case of E-Funds International India Private Limited v. PR. CIT, while dismissing the appeals of the Revenue that revised computation was sufficient in the place of furnishing revised returns as there was only a minor technical fault as the figure of USDs was not changed into Rupees while computing the deduction under section 10A.
CIT v Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd- Bombay HC observed that the appeals filed by the Revenue was in a very causal manner without indicating the basis of the challenge. Further, it was observed that Rule of law implies certainty of law.
In the case of CIT v Trend Electronics, Bombay Court held that before issuance of reopening notice for assessment, the Revenue have to furnish the reasons for it. Otherwise, the notice will be considered as bad in Law.
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited v CCE held that the particular product which has been manufactured by the assessee for captive consumption will only be considered for any kind of exemption if covered by any exemption notification.
In case of CCE v M/s Fitrite Packers, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the product could be termed as ‘Manufactured’ only when there is a transformation in the original article and this transformation should bring out a distinctive or different use in the article.
In case of M/s Star Industries v Commissioner of Customs (Import), Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Notification No.4/2006-CE held that it is an exemption notification where only ‘Ores’ were exempted and if after the process of manufacture
In the present case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the place of delivery could not be termed as place of removal for the relevant time mentioned in the show cause notices with respect to section 4 of Excise Act and Rule 5 of Excise Valuation Rules.
The Bombay High Court has held in the case of TNT India private Limited v. Principal CIT that Writ Petition could be allowed if the due procedure have not been followed while suspending the registration under Regulation 14 of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
