The appellant does not even undertake any loading operation. The primary job of the appellant, as per the contract between the appellant and the Ambuja companies, is of supervising and liasioning with the coal company
In the case of M/s.A.B.Agencies Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by Kerala High Court that a CHA cannot be absolved of his lapse of supervision and misconduct of his employees attracting Clause 19 of the Regulations warranting action against him under Regulation 20.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bellsonica Auto Components India Private Limited held that services directly or indirectly used in relation to manufacture of final products are eligible for Cenvat credit.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the building had been developed to be sold or let out with no possibility of the terrace floor being subjected to such utilization. As there is no other purpose to be served by the property held on the terrace floor
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT(A) Vs M/s ITW India Limited that mere change in opinion of the AO could not amount to issue of notice for re-assessment u/s 147. AO should had reasonable tangible facts in hand before issuing notice u/s 147.
Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise Vs M/S Grip Engineers Pvt Ltd. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- In this Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.04.2003 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance of excisable goods invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act
In the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, ITAT Delhi has held that addition cannot be made for Cash deposits in the bank account received against sale of land as undisclosed investment for mere failure of Assessee to Produce
‘On money’ received by the assessee did not have the character of income but was only an advance like the one received through cheque. Both will become part of the sale consideration to the assessee simultaneously on either handing over the possession of the flats or on execution of transfer deed whichever happens earlier.
The dividend can be received or deemed to have been received only by shareholder of the company, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) enlarging the scope of dividend under the express deemed dividend cannot be invoked in case of a person who is not a shareholder of the company who has advance the loan.
Tribunal in this above case decided two debatable issues. Firstly that the mistake can be rectified after assessment attained finality and assessee had accepted the assessment order. The same is decided by the tribunal in the light of decision of apex court.
