Show cause notice was issued by the adjudicating authority to the tax payer alleging that the taxpayer is not entitled to avail/utilize the MODVAT/CENVAT credit in respect of units whose values stood written off. Hence it was proposed to be reverse such MODVAT/CENVAT credit
When transactions with a particular party are over that party may not be ready to co-operate in giving information which are exactly asked by the Assessing Officer from the assessee, under these circumstances, the revenue authorities have ample powers under the Act to issue summons to the party and if they are not exercising such powers, the assessee cannot be blamed for concealing particulars and or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
DDIT(E)-II Vs. M/s. Rock Church Ministries (ITAT Hyderabad ) The purpose of section 13(1)(c) is to deprive a religious or charitable trust from exemption if it is found that its income is used or applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of the specified persons. Section 13(1)(c) carves out a general exception wherein the provisions of sections 11 and 12 will not operate on account of user or application of any income of the trust for any direct or indirect benefit of the any specified persons. It is an undisputed fact that the rent paid of Rs. 9,500 is not excessive even as per the old provisions of municipal. The assessee paid the rent as per the old municipal taxes. The present rental value would be much more than the rent paid by the assessee for the property having a building of 4000 sq. Ft. on a land admeasuring 15,000 sq. ft. that too in a prime locality in the city of Hyderabad. The market rent i.e., Rs. 80,000 per month as estimated by the Government Valuer is much more to the rent paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer could not establish that the rent paid by the assessee is excessive and the rental value estimated by the Government valuer is incorrect. The contention of the Revenue that there is variation in the name in the municipal records and I.T. records is also baseless as the name in the municipal records is in abbreviated form.
Appellant engaged in providing service of manpower supply – appellant defaulted in payment of service tax amounting to Rs.22.30 lakhs even though the amount of service tax had been collected from the customers – amount of Rs.20.37 lakhs paid during investigation – demand confirmed along with penalty and interest – Commissioner(A) order to make a pre-deposit of Rs.7.5 lakhs is not unreasonable as it covers approximately 25% towards penalty and full amount of service tax without taking into account the interest liability – appellant directed to pay the pre-deposit within six weeks and report compliance to Commr(A) who will decide case on merits: CESTAT
The assessee is, admittedly, neither a `primary agricultural credit society’ nor a `primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank’. As such, it is not covered by the exceptions to s. 80P(4), as provided by the said sub-section itself, denying deduction u/s. 80P to all cooperative banks. The Legislature in its wisdom restricted the exemption, which extends to the whole of the specified incomes, i.e., of cooperatives societies undertaking specified activities, w.e.f. 1/4/2007 to the said two primary units, where the assessee is a cooperative bank. The assessee in the instant case being an apex cooperative society lending money to such primary units functioning within the State of Kerala, he denied the assessee its claim for deduction u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i).
We would think that the moment the assessee pours the chemicals into the effluent, he will cease to be the owner and at that point of time the awarder must be deemed to have taken delivery of the same. In our view the fact that upon it being poured into the effluent, it loses its identity and that it is consumed will not detract from the fact that there is delivery of the same to the awarder. The assessee does not have a case that the effluent belongs to the assessee.
These are appeals against the order dated 24.09.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in L.P.A. No.1098 of 2006 and against the order dated 02.11.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Review Application No.396 of 2007.
Commissioner Of Central Excise (CCE) vs M/S Patran Pipes (P) Ltd. – There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner and the Tribunal that there was nothing to show that the amount of cash seized represented clandestine sale of excisable goods.
The second contention of the appellants is that the law of pleadings and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, apply to the proceedings before the CLB. Therefore, the CLB ought not to have taken note of the new pleadings made by the impleaded parties and ought not to have accepted the pleadings made without any evidence.
The assessee is not entitled to adjustment of 5 per cent as stipulated u/s 92C(2), where only one of the several methods specified u/s 92C(1) is applied by the assessee to determine the arm’s length price
