Delhi High Court held In the case of: CIT vs. Suman Dhamija that in the present case the Assessee is justified in contending that although award has been made and the compensation payable has been enhanced, the amount itself is in dispute, that dispute is pending in the Court.
It was held that the rate of duty applicable on the differential assessable value recovered at the depot premises attributable to the products manufactured would be the rate applicable to the said goods when they were cleared from the factory premises.
The assessee is engaged in the process of cold-rolling of hot-rolled stainless steel patta/patti on job work basis. As per the assessee, for this purpose, it receives hot-rolled SS patta/patti from other manufacturers and thereafter undertakes the process of cold-rolling in the cold-rolling mill.
In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that excise duty is paid by the manufacturer on branded goods manufactured
In the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of levy of interest u/s 11AB on excise duty paid due to price escalation which has already been decided in the cases of SKF
In the present case admittedly the sale has not taken place from the factory gate but goods were sold from the depot and at the time of sale from the depot the price charged was the price minus quantity discount, therefore, the price excluding the quantity discount is an amount payable at the time of sale or at any other time.
Food world Supermarkets Ltd. vs.DCIT- ITAT Bangalore observed that the 5 seconded employees were not ordinary employees or workers but they were deputed at the high level managerial/executive positions which showed that they were deputed because of expertise and managerial skills in the field.
The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT remanded back the matter and held that DRP has not met the contention of the assessee in respect of inclusion/exclusion of comparable in its order.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that there is no dispute that for purchasing the property at Munirka for a consideration of Rs.9,37,33,600, the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank for Rs.6.50 crores on which the authorities below have allowed the interest paid by the assessee.
