Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant.
I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office.
Kerala High Court held that levy of service tax on admission to amusement facilities do not result into any trenching of Union Parliament on power conferred on State as two aspects taxed by respective legislatures are ‘service’ and ‘amusement’ and no law is invalid in taxing its respective aspect even when same activity being getting taxed twice under two different laws.
Whether the ITAT was right in treating the payments made to retiring partners in the nature of compensation can be termed as goodwill and subsequently eligible for depreciation?
Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 28.3.2013. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in the guise of exercising his power u/s 263 of the Act, issued show cause notice calling for the objection of the assessee.
The Jaipur bench of ITAT in the above cited case held that the assessee is only expected to produce the documentary evidences regarding the transaction and identity of the persons from whom it has accepted the deposits.
Back office operations carried on at an office would fall within the exclusionary clause of Article 5(3) (e) of the Treaty between India and United States which is also identically worded as Article 5(3) (e) of the India-UAE DTAA.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. that Mr. Rattan Gupta was not only doing the audit work of the five Assessee companies, but determining who should be the directors of the said companies.
Statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4).
