M/s. C.P.C. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore (CESTAT Chennai) The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers’ invoice, as well as the material inward notes, cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the […]
Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Ahmedabad) This tribunal in the case of Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel vs. ITO (Supra) has held that the bank account of the assessee is not considered as part of the books of accounts.The relevant part of this order of the Tribunal is already reproduced above. From the […]
In re M/s Aristoplast Products Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Daman/Diu/DNH) 1. In the first case against Application dtd 12.09.2018 filed by M/S Aristoplast Products Pvt Ltd, Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman main road, Dabhel, Nani Daman, Advance Ruling is given that the product Plastics Broom-Sticks is classifiable under HSN Code 96032100 as “Others” and the […]
The word reasonable has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word reasonable.
BCCI Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) it is undisputedly admitted that appellants have provided the program feed to the M/s MSM Singapore at the venue of match which is in India and not outside. The programme feed as provided by the appellant, is encrypted and then uplinked by the said M/s MSM/ WSG […]
It was held that Amount received by assessee from his father out of sum received by father for transfer of mining lease right to a Company in which assessee was shareholder cannot be treated as deemed dividend income of the assessee under section 2(22)(e) as sum was not received on behalf of Assessee and it was for a commercial transaction.
We find from the label/packaging of the goods that the percentage of cheese is not more than 55%, which indicates that though cheese is the major component of the goods but it cannot be said to be present in such quantity that it predominates or overwhelms the presence of other ingredients. It is observed that the percentage of other ingredients is as high as 45%, which should prevent the goods from retaining the character of cheese. Therefore acceptance of these goods as cheese would not be the correct position.
In re M/s. Nutan warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Products stored in the warehouse of the appellant are not the agricultural produce, we come to the question asked in the advance ruling application filed by the them i.e. Whether the supply of warehouse services used for packing & storage of tea, under above […]
S/S Patel Hardware Vs Commissioner (Allahabad High Court) Keeping in mind the fact that the delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned beyond the period of one month from the expiry of period of limitation, the phrase “communicated to such person” appearing in Section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would […]
ITAT, Delhi held that the subsidy received by the assessee from the subsidy received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme of 2004 was capital in nature and could not be taxed as revenue receipts.
