It was held that the Department cannot reject the certificate issued by the competent authority. In case the certificate was obtained by mis-representation or not presenting full facts the only option left to the department is to approach the competent authority with all the evidences to modify/cancel the certificate issued already.
It was held that the unjust enrichment can’t be proved by establishing the source of funds out of which the excise duty has been paid. Further it was held that in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise.
It was held that CENVAT credit on various items used in the fabrication of capital goods can be availed. In the present case, the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the usage of different items in the installation of capital goods.
The law under section 51 and 56(2)(ix) provides for the taxability of forfeiture of advance money received in the hands of seller. Till AY 2014-15, the forfeited sum was deductible from the cost and even the excess of forfeited money over cost was capital receipt not taxable by virtue of Supreme Court Judgment in Travoncore Rubbers.
A perusal of the agreement and the above undisputed facts shows that till date no transfer of the property in question has been completed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Still further, the registered sale deed has not been executed by the assessee in favour of the Bank and consequently, sale is not yet completed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivering very important judgment with regard to taxability of inter-state works contract. In the case of Commissioner, Delhi VAT vs ABB Ltd., it has been held that in case the goods are purchased from other States or are imported from outside the country
Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 15/10/2009 during the course of which it was found that the assessee had deducted tax amounting to Rs.15,76,219/-
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case law held that any contingent impact on profit/loss would not take the transaction to fall within the purview of international transaction. In the present case
When the object of assessee’s business is to develop and let out the properties then even when it is also providing other facilities to tenants still the assessee’s income will be assessable as business income.
Petitioner herein seeks to challenge the transfer of First Information Report (hereinafter referred as “F.I.R.”) No. 0/2015 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) dated 28/06/2015 for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) by its memo. order dated 09/07/2015.
