Vectus Industries Limited Vs Chif Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court) Heard Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General for the State Authorities and Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India upon whom the copy of the writ petition was served on the direction of […]
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while filing the appeal, the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount and that in view of Section 112 of the RGST Act, if he deposits further 10% of the disputed tax amount while filing the appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the tribunal, the depositing of remaining amount shall stand automatically stayed.
ITAT Delhi held that interest on bank deposits, receipts of subsidy and insurance claim are eligible to be included in profits of 100% export oriented unit for purpose of claiming deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that there is no Service Tax liability as and when the construction of flat is for the personal use of the service recipient.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for fixing quantum of redemption fine but the same has to be done, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case
Supreme Court held that addition u/s 69C as unexplained income sustained as based on search conducted in group concern it was found that assessee was maintaining the books of accounts outside regular books.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that purchase of land from landowners and re-sale of the same to Real Estate Developers doesn’t fall under the category of ‘Real Estate Agency Service’ and hence not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that irrespective of the fact that whether at the supplier’s end duty is payable or otherwise, CENVAT Credit not deniable once duty has been paid on the goods at the recipient end. In nut-shell, CENVAT not deniable on the ground that the supplier was not liable to pay duty on goods supplied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards closing cash balance as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 unsustained as cash was generated from agricultural activity and revenue failed to discharge the onus of disproving the said contention of the assessee.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that supplying labour doesn’t qualify as ‘Cargo Handling Services’. The goods do not become cargo as any movement of goods within the factory does not make it a cargo.
