ITAT Delhi held In the case of Avaya India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT that a perusal of the annual report of company reveals that the said company has made income from sale of license to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore,
The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956.
CIT Vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee has indeed discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender (TIL). There was no requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the sub- creditor, which is in this case was TCL.
While hearing an appeal filed by Dabur India Ltd Promoter Pradip Burman in Black Money case related to undisclosed Bank Account maintained Outside India, Delhi High Court held that prosecution can be launched against him as at the time of commission of alleged offence
CIT Vs. Sharda Sinha (Delhi High Court) The Court concurs with the conclusion of the CIT (A) that the sum paid to the Assessee was to compensate for the abrupt loss of source of income and that the termination of contract had fatally injured the appellant’s only source of income for the last 20 years.
The assessment under Section 143(3) was originally done on 19.12.2008. The notice under Section 148, which is impugned herein, has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
M/s Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co.Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of jewellery, during the process of manufacturing on behalf of the customers
Subic Innovative Plastics (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) had taken Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development (R&D) and Quality Control Laboratory situated in the factory premises.
SC overruled the CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Maruti Suzuki case and held that pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges are not to be included in assessable value- Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs. TVS Motors Company Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 874 – SUPREME COURT]
Refund is allowable where Service tax is paid twice by the Appellant due to clerical error and the same is proved by supporting documents- Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2015 (12) TMI 884 – CESTAT NEW DELHI]
