Textiles stood excluded from purview of ADE Act. It was accordingly concluded by STO that they would become amenable to Orissa sales tax from that date.
Facts reveal that service tax in regard to impugned service already been paid to Government, department cannot collect service tax again on impugned service.
Merely because CA certificate is not as per liking of authorities, it cannot be brushed aside as no specific format of certificate has been prescribed by statute.
CESTAT held Service tax not payable on ‘Software Activation Charges’ under taxable services of ‘Business Auxiliary Services
CESTAT held that SSI Exemption cannot be denied for Trademark Registration in Family Member name, Jointly in Family Members Name or in partners name.
HC held that, directing assessee to prefer an appeal will not be effective as the facts, which it seeks to bring on record were not a part of records before original authority.
ITAT Kolkata held that disclosure of undisclosed income under IDS, 2016 on which taxes are duly paid cannot be further added as undisclosed stock. Claim of set off of undisclosed income duly available against the undisclosed stock surrendered during the course of survey.
Commission earned by assessee on such “cheque discounting” was chargeable at 0.25% of total deposits in the bank accounts owned/ operated by the assessee as commission income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration in absence of details provided by assessee for arriving at any methodology along-with supporting evidence viz. details of beneficiaries, details of middlemen, basis of arriving at commission etc.
Matter for denying the lower rate of duty prescribed for heading no. 3105 corresponding to ‘other fertilisers’ in Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was remanded back to the original authority for subjecting the statement of the employee, considered to be of particular relevance in determining the outcome of the impugned order, to the prescriptive mandate of section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Chennai held that post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2008, the scope of adjustment u/s.143(1) of the Act has widened and enlarged. Accordingly, adjustments with regard to incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return of income permissible.
