The Bombay High Court held that the monthly alimony amounted to taxable income in the hands of the assessee. However, the lump sum alimony was in the nature of capital receipt.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the draft Assessment order was passed on 30th March, 2015 without having disposed of the Assessee’s objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice.
It remains undisputed that in the reasons recorded by the AO, there is no allegation, much less any specific one, regarding any alleged failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment.
Delhi High Court held In the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT that absence of a provision similar to sec. 40(a) (i) does not mean that the Assessee would also be disentitled to claim deduction on account of salaries in the year to which such expenses pertained even though
In this case in the show-cause notice the allegation is that the appellant availed input service credit on construction of shopping complex outside the factory premises whereas in the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the service provided and credit availed was not either directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of the appellant’s final product.
Learned counsel explains that the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit having paid the service tax on reverse charge mechanism on behalf of SEZ unit of the company, the portion of such tax attributable to the SEZ is denied by the adjudicating authority to avail CENVAT credit thereof.
The taxable services availed by the appellant were to occasion the exports. There appears nexus between export and the service so availed which cannot be ruled out by the authorities below. Once that is present, denial of the refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit to the exporter is unreasonable.
What the learned counsel says is that its right not being abrogated by law and also in absence of any provision in law to deny refund, the unutilised credit of AED is refundable. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgment, appellant is entitled to refund. When law itself does not deny grant of refund of unutilised credit there shall be no question of limitation to apply.
Learned counsel says that maintenance of health of the factory workers where they work in hazardous situation is an essentiality both under statute as well as requirement of the conditions of the employment.
Learned counsel says that pollution control being necessity of law appellant has complied to that law incurring certain expenditure which have suffered service tax. Inadmissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of the service tax suffered having direct relation and intimate connection with the manufacture to prevent pollution, shall be mis-carriage of justice.
