HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified.
The ITAT bench of Panaji in the case of Sesa Resources Limited held that the disallowance under Sec 14A read with rule 8D can be made only in respect of investments which are earning income exempt from tax and not the total investments.
In the case of CCE v M/s Gujarat Maritime Board Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no service tax will be levied if the amount is collected under the wharfage charges which is prescribed under the Statute and doesn’t come under the ‘Port Services.
In the case of M/s Coastal Papers v CCE,Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the Notification No. 22/94-CE, held that whenever the notification is interpreted the intention of the Legislature should be considered.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Escorts Ltd. held that the test of marketability fairly satisfies when it is shown that the product is commercially known and being capable of bought and sold. The same not being actually sold is totally irrelevant.
Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of B.P.L. Limited Vs. CCE held that the benefit of exemption notification is available only when the conditions of notification are strictly met by the assessee and no benefit can be allowed by taking liberal view of any condition.
ITAT New Delhi in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Nokia India P. Ltd. held that the payments made by the assessee company to Finland based as a consideration for review of design , construction and quality control plans from outside India are not in the nature of fee for technical services as defined in Article 13 of DTAA between India and Finland.
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motorcycle and procures the service of advertising agency for the purpose of advertising their final product. They pay the value of the services to the advertising agency along with the amount of Service Tax leviable thereon.
It was held by ITAT delhi in the case of SC Jhonson Products Private Limited Vs. DCIT, that framing of assessment against a non existing entity/person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and can not be cured by application of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/S. Detergents India Ltd., Supreme Court has held that in case of related party transactions, proviso (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) will not be applicable when there is no arrangement between Shaw the related parties to depress a price which is otherwise at arm’s length.
