In the case of M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that the assessee can utilize accumulated Cenvat Credit to discharge the service tax liability towards GTA services prior to 01.03.2008. It was further held that the CENVAT credit cannot be utilised for discharging Service Tax on taxable services provided from outside India and received in India.
In the case of M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, New Delhi, it was held that the onus to prove that the assessee was providing any exempted services is on department before invoking Rule 6 and further it was held that only such intellectual property rights which are covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax under IPR service.
In the case of Namrata Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, it was held that creating infrastructure, displaying the advertisement and collecting rent for such display will not fall under the activity of advertising agency.
In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection
ITAT Bangalore held in the case M/s Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that it is clear that the balance in the reserve and surplus is only on account of security premium amount after reducing the loss incurred by the assessee for the earlier year as well as during the year under consideration.
ITAT Pune held in the case Shri M.D. Wadhokar vs. CIT that it is an admitted fact that neither any details of donations were called for by the AO nor the assessee has given the breakup of such details during the course of assessment proceedings.
M/s. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Tribunal held that the building plans for the residential and amenities space were sanctioned independently and merely because a common lay out plan was passed by the authorities, does not disentitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80IB (10).
Supreme Court held In the case of Prakash & Ors vs. Phulavati & Ors that the text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005’.
It was held that a name or writing need not be a brand name or trade name in a sense it is normally understood. Even ordinary mark or letter is sufficient to indicate a connection between the product and the company.
ITAT Delhi held in the case ITO vs. Rekha Bansal that it is clear that the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors u/s 133(6) wherein the CIT (A) found that the creditors had sufficient bank balance in their accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee.
