In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. it has been held by Goa High Court held that where non-payment of duty is not with an intent to evade of payment then there can be no occasion to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. it was held that Rule 9 is a procedural aspect which cannot deny the claim of the respondents to avail of such CENVAT Credit which they are, otherwise, admittedly, entitled to and hence CENVAT credit is allowed on the basis of TR-6 challan.
Delhi High Court In the case of Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs DIT (Exemptions) held that Assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act if its activities are outside the scope of its objects, even if its activities are charitable in nature.
In the case of CIT Vs. MGF Automobiles Ltd., Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the additions could have been made by the AO only if some incriminating document was found during search.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of ACIT vs. Sh. R. Paneerselvam (Individual) that normally, the sale price mentioned in the menu card would be the sale price of the liquor. However, the fact is that the liquor shops are giving discount on the liquor sold to their corporate guests, walk in customers, etc. for various reasons.
In A.C.I.T. vs. Kiran Industries Pvt Ltd, the Ahmedabad Tribunal following its co-ordinate bench decision and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court (T&AP) held that excise duty component need not to be included in valuation of inventory if the assessee is following exclusive method of accounting.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO that Giving advance to builder constitutes ‘purchase’ of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period.
Kolkatta High court held Shyam Burlap Company Ltd Vs CIT that as the assesse’s main business is purchasing, developing and letting out of property. The same was mentioned in the object clause of memorandum of the company.
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of VITP Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 18C of Income Tax Rules, it is clear that on approval by the central govt., CBDT is only required to notify the industrial park for benefit u/s 80IA (4)(iii).
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd., it has been held by Goa High Court that it is not permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum.
