|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1484 Records
-
2025 (3) TMI 1304
Challenge to impugned orders issued u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The SCN were issued under Section 74 of the Act. A perusal of the notice, it appears that no aspect of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or fraud has been stated in the show cause notices to fulfil the ingredient of Section 74 of the Act and therefore, the same is not sustainable under the Provision of Section 74 of the Act. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the impugned orders were passed under Section 74 of the Act, it deprives the petitioner's right in availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme.
Therefore, as suggested by the learned Special Government Pleader, it would be proper to say that the notice issued under Section 74 of the Act shall be deemed as notice under Section 73 of the Act so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme. Accordingly, the notices and the impugned orders passed under Section 74 of the Act shall be deemed as the notices and orders passed under Section 73 of the Act.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1303
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit for the Financial Year [FY] 2022-23 and first quarter of FY 2023- 24 - remittance of funds to a bank account located in Bangalore, despite the services being exported by the Delhi branch office (BO) of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- An identical issue decided in CABLE AND WIRELESS GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST & ORS. [2024 (10) TMI 442 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'While it is true that the aforesaid mapping of the Bangalore bank account has occurred after the remittances were received, they are clearly in validation of the fact that services had been exported by the Delhi BO and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at Bangalore. That these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the Delhi BO to VGSL was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. The objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable.'
Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to a reconsideration of the refund claim for unutilized ITC, and the remittance to the Bangalore bank account does not preclude the refund.
The impugned order dated 31 December 2024 is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1302
Challenge to communication sent by the 2nd respondent - Issuance of summons u/s 70 of the GST Act, seeking information and details from the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Section 74 of the CGST Act becomes applicable when there is evasion or payment of tax by way of willful proposition, misstatement or fraud in the payment of tax. In such circumstances, the authorities are permitted to levy penalty amounting 100% of the tax which has not been paid. However, the very same provision also provides for graded response. That is, personal liability to pay tax, can reduce his liability of penalty from 100% to various percentages of penalty, depending on the stage at which the person liable to pay tax admits his liability, and pays the short paid tax along with penalty. In this process, if the person admits short payment and pays the tax along with 15% of the tax penalty, no further steps would be taken under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
In the present case, the communication sent by the 2nd respondent is in line with the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act - The aforesaid communication does not in any manner create any liability on the petitioner nor would amount to initiation of any proceedings against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the competence of the 2nd respondent, who issued such communication, would not arise as it is a general communication setting out the law.
This writ petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to set out its grounds of opposition to any proceedings initiated against the petitioner for short payment of tax or willful evasion of tax or wrongful availment of ITC.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1301
Categorisation of impugned order u/s 73 or 74 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though the proceedings is styled as one under Section 74 of the Act, in reality/substance, the proceedings are actually under Section 73 of the Act especially having regard to the contents of the impugned order which does not contain necessary material particular/details so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 74 of the Act but are under Section 73 of the Act.
It is also relevant to state that the impugned order is an exparte order which deserves to be set aside by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their claim and seek benefit of GST Amnesty Scheme by treating the proceedings one under Section 73 of the Act. Under these circumstances, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1300
Seizure of goods with vehicle - Validity of affidavit supporting the writ application - lack of authorization for the deponent to represent all petitioners - HELD THAT:- In the writ application, there is no averment that Gopal Yadav who is the deponent has been duly authorised by the petitioners to present this writ application in this Court. No document showing authoristion in favour of the deponent has been enclosed. The deponent has claimed in the affidavit that he is Manager-cum-authorised representative of petitioner no.3. He has not stated that he has been authorised by all the petitioners to swear affidavit.
This Court further finds that in the affidavit, the deponent has not declared that he has gone through the statements made in the writ application or that those statements have been read over and explained to him. The affidavit, therefore, suffers from several infirmities. It is not in accordance with law and the rules of the Patna High Court.
Conclusion - There being no averment either in the writ application or in the affidavit that the deponent Gopal Yadav has been appointed/authorised as legal representative of the writ petitioners to file the present writ application and to swear affidavit on their behalf, the writ application as framed would be rendered incompetent.
This writ application stands dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1299
Blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules without a pre-decisional hearing and without independent reasons to believe - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order except stating that the registered person/ supplier "found to be a bill trader and involved in issuance/availment in fake invoices", no other reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order.
The impugned order is quashed - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1298
Refund of unutilized ITC on account of supplies made to SEZ units without payment of tax - violation of paragraph No. 8 of Circular No. 125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that once the respondents admit the entitlement of the petitioner to the quantum of refund, then this Court has ample powers and the jurisdiction to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner, the said refund. In the opinion of this Court, the failure so to do would tantamount to a stamp of approval by this Court to the unjust enrichment on the part of the Department to the excess tax collected by it from the petitioner, which it did not have authority to collect under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Circulars of the Board are undoubtedly important to follow for both the Assessee and the Department.
Today, the operation of Tax Laws in India is largely procedural and based on interaction of the Assessee with the respective Departments, through the respective portals. In the context of GST, Excise, Customs etc., Acts, the supply, movement, claim of drawback, refund, Input Tax Credit etc., and the filing of the returns are to be uploaded on the portal strictly as per the prescribed Forms with strict adherence to the respective tax calendars. In all the cases, the Department is right in contending that when the procedure has been laid down, the same has to be followed in the manner prescribed, or not at all. However, in certain cases, owing to situations beyond the control of the parties including the Department at times, the performance of the duties of the Assessee often become impossible. This is the point of inflection where insistence on the procedure or the rigorous implementation of a certain Circular would defeat the substantive rights of the Assessee, thereby causing miscarriage of justice.
The adherence to the same cannot be extended to the point that the procedure followed in the Circular completely overpowers and extinguishes the substantive rights of the Assessee under the Act. It is precisely in this domain that the writ of this Court will issue. Thus, in genuine cases of refund, once the conscience of the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has the substantive right to refund, in appropriate cases, it becomes necessary in the interest of justice to exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to hold that the procedure, being a hand-maiden of substantive justice, does not edge out the substantive rights of the petitioner. Otherwise, it would tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
The impugned order issued by the respondent no. 4 and order issued by the respondent No. 5 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal are hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1297
Violation of principles of natural justice - SCN and the order impugned has been passed without application of mind and without any legal basis - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, notice under Section 61 of the Act was issued to the petitioner pointing out the discrepancies, when the same was not responded, show cause notice incorporating the said deficiencies was issued to which a reply (Annexure No. 6) dated 18.12.2023 was filed. A perusal of the reply indicates that for the various issues indicated in the show cause notice, apparently, cursory indications were made and the copies of balance-sheet, trading account and profit and loss account were annexed wherein no details/particulars of any nature relevant to the discrepancy pointed out were available/had any support to the contention raised in reply to the show cause notice.
The Authority, taking into consideration the plea raised in the reply to the show cause notice, passed the order dated 22.04.2024. The nature of order which has been passed, it cannot be said that the same is non-speaking as the contentions raised, have been considered and not accepted by the Authority - The plea, regarding violation of principles of natural justice, looses significance once petitioner was issued notice for date of hearing dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure No. 8) and petitioner chose not to appear.
Once by passing of the order, the petitioner was aggrieved, it was required of the petitioner to question its validity by filing the appeal. Apparently, no appeal has been filed and no reason is forthcoming. Filing of the writ petition, wherein apparently, petitioner is seeking to question the merit of the order dated 22.04.2024 and none of the grounds for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are available in the present case, cannot be countenanced.
Conclusion - There is no violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is provided with an opportunity to be heard, and the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy that was not pursued.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1296
Challenge to order passed u/s 73 of the WSBGST /CGST 2017 - disallowance of ITC claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the returns filed under Section 39 of the said Act in Form GSTR 3B beyond the due date - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that in this case, the ITC had been disallowed by reasons of the petitioner filing the return in Form GSTR 3B beyond the due date, and on the basis of insertion of sub3 section (5) to Section 16, the returns filed by the petitioner which is in respect of the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019 have now been regularized having regard to the new cut of date provided for in Section 16(5) of the said Act, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the aforesaid amendment.
The petitioner is permitted to apply before the appropriate authority by making appropriate rectification application - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1295
Discrepancy between his client’s account and goods and services tax (GST) annual return - HELD THAT:- It appears from impugned show-cause notice that in respect of a sum of ₹ 8,02,84,232/- there is an issue between petitioner-assessee and revenue. Petitioner says it is a discrepancy while revenue says petitioner wrongly availed input tax credit (ITC). Impugned show- cause notice bears record of explanation sought for by the jurisdictional officer, furnished and satisfaction recorded. All the above in respect of said sum of ₹ 8,02,84,232/-.
In view of last preceding paragraph petitioner will reply to impugned show-cause notice. In it, petitioner will be at liberty to take all points, including the point of limitation. The authority says and will pass order by 5th February, 2025. On communication of the order to petitioner, it will obtain advise on next course of action.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1294
Levy of GST on electricity and water charges, which are being collected at actual by the Lessor from the Lessee - nature of supply - applicable rate of GST - HELD THAT:- Duet India provides renting services along with other amenities like electricity, water etc. Without these amenities/ facilities, the building does not fetch any rental value. The intention of the Lessee is to avail the renting services provided by Duet India. A Lessee does not avail of amenities of electricity and water, without availing the renting service. Thus, no option is available to the Lessee. Further there must be an authorisation by Lessee on Lessor when he makes payment to Electricity Department. In the present case, there is no sub-meter in the name of Lessee. Hence, the question of Lessee authorising the Lessor to pay the charges does not arise. As such, the prescribed conditions are not fulfilled for Duet India to be treated as a pure agent.
The services of transmission of electricity and distribution of electricity are exempted under Notification No: 12/2017-CT(R). The exemption entry covers consideration received for services supplied by way of transmission or distribution and not services in relation to transmission or distribution. Further, the exemption at entry at SI No: 25 of N/N. 12/2017-CT(R) is only available if the person is a Transmission or Distribution Licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Lessor in this case, is neither a Distribution Licensee nor a Transmission Licensee. In any case, even if the view of the Member-State was to be treated as correct, it would not impact the rate at which tax is chargeable in the present case.
Conclusion - As per Section 8(a) of the CGST Act, the supply in the present case has to be treated as a supply of service of 'renting of immovable property', i.e., the principal supply and shall be leviable to tax accordingly.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1293
Applicability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the services provided by M/s Telangana State Technology Services Limited (TSTSL) to the State Government of Telangana - Supply of goods and services ot not - e-Procurement transaction fee collected on behalf of the Information Technology, Electronics & Communications (IT E&C) Department of Telangana State Government - time limitation - HELD THAT:- A careful reading of Entry 6 of N/N. 12/2017 dated: 28.06.2017 reveals that this entry pertains to services provided by the Government and not services provided to the Government. The appellant is providing services to the Government. Therefore the services provided by the appellant to the Government are not exempt under this Notification. Further the services provided by the appellant on behalf of the Government to business entities is covered by the exception to the above entry, therefore such services also are not exempt.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The date of communication of the AAR is 4.10.2021 and appeal filed on 1.11.2021 and hence, filed within time.
At the time of personal hearing on 17.2.2025, the authorised representatives, upon being asked, clarified that GST is being paid since inception on the subject service and there is no dispute.
The order of the Authority for Advance Ruling is upheld.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1292
Eligibility to claim ITC in respect of the GST paid on inward supplies used for providing transportation facilities to employees - HELD THAT:- As per Section 16 (1) of CGST Act, 2017, every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and, in the manner, specified in Section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business. Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for apportionment of credit and blocked credit. Section 17 (5) of the Act restricts the input tax credit subject to the conditions prescribed therein. Section 17 (5) has been amended by CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No: 31 of 2018) dt: 29.08.2018 made effective from 01.02.2019, vide N/N. 02/2019-CT dt: 29.01.2019.
The proviso to the Section 17 (5) clearly stipulates that input tax credit shall be available only if it is obligatory on the part of the employer to provide the impugned services to its employees under any law. This is a substantial condition to be complied for getting the benefit of input tax credit. The appellants are under no statutory obligation to provide transportation facility to their employees. This facility has been provided to the employees as a measure of personal convenience since the factory is stated to be located in the remote area. In terms of Section 17 (5) (g) of CGST ACT, 2017, input tax credit is not available in respect of goods or services or both used for personal consumption.
CBIC vide Circular No: 172/04/2022-GST dt: 06.07.2022 has clarified that various perquisites provided by the employer to its employees in terms of contractual agreement entered into, are in lieu of the services provided by employee to the employer in relation to his/her employment and fall under the category of Schedule III to the CGST act and hence will not be subjected to GST - In the instant case, transportation services are provided as a perquisite by the employer in terms of contractual agreement and hence the amounts recovered from the employees held as not taxable by the Advance Ruling Authority. On this count alone, when transport services provided by the appellant to their employees are not taxable, the ITC on such inward services availed by them towards providing such non-taxable services is not allowed.
Conclusion - The transportation services provided as a measure of personal convenience are not taxable, and thus, ITC on such services is not available.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1291
Classification of goods - Rate of SGST and CGST applicable - Aluminium Composite Panel/Sheet - covered under HSN 3920 or HSN 7610 or HSN 7606? - HELD THAT:- It has been brought out that the rates of GST are specified as per “tariff item”, “sub-heading”, “heading”, and “chapter” mentioned in the schedules to the relevant notifications, which are as specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is also specified that the rules of interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act shall also apply to the interpretation of these notifications. In this light, the Central Member has applied Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for Interpretation of Tariff to hold that the subject goods would fall under Chapter 76, since essential character in respect of the ACPs is given by Aluminum. The Central Member has thereafter ruled out the contending Heading 7610 as the subject goods are not Aluminum structures and parts of structures.
Thereafter, following the decision of CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Chennai Vs ICP India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 546 - CESTAT CHENNAI], the Central Member has held the goods to be classifiable under Heading 7606.
Conclusion - The Aluminium Composite Panel/Sheet is classified under HSN 7606, and the applicable tax rate is determined to be 18%.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1290
Proceedings u/s 153C - issuance of the notice was preceded by the drawl of a Satisfaction Note by the jurisdictional AO - importance of material recovered in the course of a search or a requisition made and a right to reassess u/s 153A and 153C -
As decided by HC [2024 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT] except for a few exceptions which were noticed in the introductory parts of this judgment, the writ petitions forming part of this batch, impugn the invocation of Section 153C in respect of AYs’ for which no incriminating material had been gathered or obtained. The Satisfaction Notes also fail to record any reasons as to how the material discovered and pertaining to a particular AY is likely to “have a bearing on the determination of the total income” for the year which is sought to be abated or reopened in terms of the impugned notices. The respondents have erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the moment any material is recovered in the course of a search or on the basis of a requisition made, they become empowered in law to assess or reassess all the six AYs’ years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable to the search year or the “relevant assessment year” as defined in terms of Explanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable and contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above.
HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the common impugned order passed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1289
Allowability of broken period interest - HC [2018 (4) TMI 523 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] concluded issue against the Revenue - petitioner(s) submitted that the issues raised in these petitions are covered by the order of this Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2024 (10) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT] HELD THAT:- Following the aforesaid order, these Special Leave Petitions also stand dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1288
Addition of cash deposit u/s 68 - Ownership of bank accounts and cash deposits - substantial question of law or fact - as decided by HC [2024 (5) TMI 1474 - DELHI HIGH COURT] principal argument which was sought to be addressed on this appeal was that various transactions which fell for scrutiny were not undertaken in the accounts of the assessee requires us to delve into facts and which do not even appear to have been either raised or urged before the ITAT. In any case, such a course would not be merited bearing in mind the limited scope of this appeal and which stands confined to the consideration of a substantial question of law.
As decided by SC [2024 (10) TMI 432 - SC ORDER] we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed
HELD THAT:- Application for discharge of previous Advocate-on-record is allowed.
Having perused the review petition, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established.
Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1287
Return treated as non-est - delay in filing the return was not attributable to the appellant rather to the department as having supplied photocopies of the seized materials and books of accounts on 05.07.2004, seized on the date of search dated 04.09.2002 under Section 132 - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the observation as ‘nonest’ as a finding against the assessee and, therefore, when we peruse ‘paragraph 8.3’ of the impugned judgement, we find force in the submission of Shri Goyal that the Tribunal has failed to examine the entire facts and circumstances of the case but has treated the finding of ‘non-est’ as final and the consequence thereof appears to be that the assessee has been taxed twice i.e. in regular proceedings as well as those relating to block assessment for the relevant period.
The Tribunal has itself held that delay in filing ‘non-est’ return was not solely attributable to the assessee. The said observation has material bearing on the entire controversy involved as the financial implications of the result of proceedings of regular assessment vis-a-vis block assessment have to be examined in the entirety of the fact situation.
Consequently, we answer both the questions in the manner that the Tribunal’s finding treating the ITR under Section 139(1) for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 filed on 01.09.2004 as ‘non-est’ is erroneous and the effect of search conducted on 04.09.2002 before the due date i.e. 31.10.2002, release of material in favour of the assessee on 05.07.2004, filing of return thereafter on 01.09.2004 and its financial consequences were liable to be considered on their own merits and not based upon the observation of ‘non-est’ made by this Court in the order dated 16.05.2014. Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1286
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued beyond period of four years - reasons to believe - Claim of deductions u/s 10AA - HELD THAT:- In this case, complete disclosures were made, and it is only upon consideration of complete disclosures that the original assessment order dated 20 December 2017 was made. The legal position also favoured the assessee’s case. The decisions of the ITAT in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 2011-12 and the decision of Yokogawa India Limited. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] were very much available on the date of issue of the impugned reopening notice.
In its reply, the revenue admitted that reassessment proceedings were initiated due to audit objection. Significantly, no such reason was given to the petitioner, along with the impugned notice seeking to reopen the assessment. There was no question of seeking to reopen the assessment on the grounds or the reasons furnished to the petitioner.
Thus, Jurisdictional parameters for reopening the assessment beyond 4 years cannot be said to have been satisfied in this case. This was nothing but the case of mere change of opinion. It is well settled that proceedings to reopen an assessment are not akin to review proceedings. This is also not a case where there was any failure on the petitioner’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1285
Allowable deduction u/s 40A(7)(b) for provision made towards the approved gratuity fund with LIC - HELD THAT:- The analogy drawn by the assessee is qua the observation of the Supreme Court in the context of Section 40A(9) by that assessee, pointing out that that provision, Section 40A(9), has been held to override the provisions of Section 43B by operation of the non-obstante clause in Section 40A(1). So too in the present case, we agree that the provisions of Section 40A(7) would override Section 43B if the assessee in question satisfies the stipulations under clauses (a) and (b) thereof.
Whether the contributions made by the assessee are to an approved gratuity fund or otherwise, as that would be critical to determine eligibility in terms of Section 40A(7)(b)? - For the present year, which falls in between the previous and subsequent years where the stand of the assessee on this issue has been accepted, the assessee places on record the following particulars to establish that the payments have been made to the LIC gratuity fund duly approved by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Tamil Nadu, I, Chennai.
A copy of original trust deed has been produced. That deed is between the Chemicals Plastics India Limited and the Trustees of the aforesaid Company, and provides for setting up of a group gratuity fund for various benefits to the employees. The fund is deemed to have taken effect from 1.1.1978. Vide proceedings of CIT Tamilnadu – 2, Madras – 34, dated 23.05.1979, recognition and approval have been accorded to the employees gratuity fund.
Variations were made to the aforesaid deed of trust with the previous approval of the CIT to such variations obtained under C.No.1252-II(4)/78/dated 15.3.1988. One of the variations is to sub-clause(a) of the preamble to trust deed dated 1.3.1978 extending the scope of applicability of trust deed to ‘the employees of any of its subsidiaries/associates’ also.
With the above variation having been approved to take effect on 15.04.1988, the contributions of the assessee company also stand covered under the ambit of the approved gratuity fund. The aforesaid variation has been carried forward throughout deed of trust dated 01.03.1978, thus bringing the subsidiaries/associates of Chemicals and Plastics Limited also within the cover of approved gratuity fund dated 1.03.1978 with effect from 15.04.1988.
Documents have been supplied to the learned Senior Standing Counsel and sufficient time and opportunity afforded to him to obtain instructions from the AO. Learned Counsel, fairly, does not dispute the position that the Assessee has been granted the benefit of the claim under examination now, for the previous and subsequent years. The documentation produced now is identical to the documentation on the basis of which the claim had been accepted by the Department for the other years. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
