|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1843 Records
-
2017 (1) TMI 1628
TPA - inclusion and exclusion of certain comparables - Held that:- Assessee-company engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprise(AE)
We find force in the preliminary submission of the AR that if ICRA and IDCL are accepted as comparables and if MOIAPL and NBAL are excluded from the final list the margin earned by the assessee would be within the limit of +/-5% range.
The assessee has shown margin of 20. 56% for the services rendered by it to its AE. As it falls within the range of +/-5% so in our opinion the adjustment made by the AO to determine the ALP of the IT. s. entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration has to be. As a result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the AO stands dismissed.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1627
Validity of proceedings u/s 158BD - proceedings initiated against the assessee pursuant to a search and seizure action under section 132 against Bimbis group of concerns - whether at the time of initiating the proceedings under section 158BC for the completion of the assessments of the searched person under section 132 or 132A of the Act or during the course of the assessment proceedings under section 158BC or after completion of the proceedings under section 158BC? - Held that:- The issue arising in this case as to whether non-recording of satisfaction as provided under section 158BD of the Act in a case where the AO is common did not arise for consideration of the apex court and therefore we are unable to accept the plea of the learned senior counsel for the assessee that the judgment in Calcutta Knitwears (2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT) impliedly overruled the judgment in Panchajanyam (2010 (11) TMI 366 - KERALA HIGH COURT). Therefore, the judgment in Panchajanyam being that of a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this court, against which though an appeal filed by the assessee is pending before the apex court, is a precedent binding on this court.
Therefore, since the AO is common, the reasoning of the Tribunal that non-recording of reason by the Assessing Officer is fatal to the assessment cannot be sustained. Therefore, answering the questions of law framed by the Revenue in its favour, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1626
TPA - ALP determination - comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in providing only engineering design services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Working capital adjustment under rule 10 B(3)(ii) of the Income tax Rules - Held that:- In the entire exercise of Transfer Pricing, the objective is to have better comparability and the purpose of working capital adjustment is to increase the comparability of tested party and its comparables. Working capital adjustment irons out the differences between assessee and comparables. In various decisions including the decision cited by the assessee, it is held that if there are differences with comparables which can be adjusted, then adjustment are required to made including the working capital adjustment. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer/TPO to grant an appropriate working capital adjustment to the assessee.
Nature of expenditure - sub-license software package - revenue or capital - Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court after considering the principles laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JK Synthetics Ltd. [2008 (12) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and other decisions upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure in question was revenue in nature. We also find that special leave petition filed by the Department against the said decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus amount for use of sublicense software package was revenue expenditure.
Since the expenditure in question towards royalty for use of sublicense software package has already been allowed as revenue expenditure, the question of allowing depreciation does not arise
-
2017 (1) TMI 1625
Entitlement for exemption u/s 11 (1)(a) - income of the assessee which are Agriculture Produce Market Committees, constituted under the statute engaged in marketing of the agriculture produce stands exempted by virtue of provisions of Section 10(26AAB) w.e.f. 1.4.09. - decision of the ITAT in holding the assessee's entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 (1)(a) justified by HC - Held that:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1624
Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of PRAYAGRAJ DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that The documents, invoices in question, issued by the registered licencee being genuine and in the absence of any allegations against the appellants of fraud, the Tribunal should not have remanded the matter back as the claim was totally barred by limitation - appeal is allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1623
TPA - comparable selection - Held that:- In the light of submissions advanced by both the parties, if result in respect of three comparables viz. (i) Cambridge Technology Enterprises Ltd., (ii) Powersoft Global Solutions Ltd., (iii) SIP Technologies & Export Ltd. can be drawn corresponding to the financial year ending on March, 2006 then only these three comparables should be included otherwise they have to be excluded from the list of comparables. Similarly, in regard to Systemlogic Solutions Ltd., ld. TPO should examine the assessee’s contentions, as noted above. If the same is found to be correct then to exclude this comparable from the list of comparables. In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of aforementioned observations.
Working capital adjustment - Held that:- matter may be restored back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer/TPO for examining the assessee’s plea and to allow the working capital adjustments. After hearing both the parties, this additional ground is admitted for examining the assessee’s contentions. This ground is also allowed for statistical purposes.
Comparable selection - Held that:- From the TPO’s order for the assessment year 2006-07, it is evident that Goldstone Technologies Limited and Computech Information Ltd. were included in the final list of comparables. However, no reason has been assigned for excluding these comparables from the final list of comparables for assessment year 2007-08. Unless any functional dissimilarity had arisen in assessment year 2007-08 in respect of these two comparables, which warranted exclusion of these two comparables, they should not have been excluded particularity in view of the principle of consistency. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer/ TPO to examine the assessee’s contentions in the light of functional dissimilarity of these comparables and, if, the same are found to be in line with the assessee then these two comparables have to be included to the list of comparability. In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Computation of Net Cost Plus (“NCP”) margin of selected comparable companies - Held that:- We direct the ld. Assessing Officer/TOP to compute the operating income of assessee by including foreign exchange gain as operating income of assessee. Thus, this ground is allowed.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1622
Rate of tax - Classification of goods - Back Bag - Tablet - Adopter - whether the goods find place in the entries of other schedules (A, B, C or D) or would fall under residuary entry?
Held that:- The "back pack" is used for conveyance of laptop during journey. The Laptop is packed in cartoon box and delivered to customers. The customer, as per requirement purchases back bag and uses for conveyance during journey. Hence, it is not packing material as such prescribed under charging section to levy tax under section 7 of MVAT Act, 2002. The product is not covered by the schedule entry as claimed by the applicant and it falls under residuary entry, E-1, and thus liable to VAT at the rate of 13.5%.
The "Tablet" is a thin, flat mobile instrument with a touch screen display, which is usually in color, processing circuitry, and a rechargeable battery in a single device. Tablets often come equipped with sensors, including digital cameras, a microphone, and an accelerometer, so that images on screens are always displayed upright.
The CETH No.84713090 being covered by CET Heading as others for "Tablet" is not found in IT Products' Notification, hence, is not covered by S/E C-56. The product covered by Excise Heading Tariff item No.87413090 is not a part of Notification issued for the purpose exemption of tax. The product "Tablet" is not covered by any schedule entry and it falls under residuary entry, E-1and liable to VAT at the rate of 13.5% - Similarly, the product viz. "Adopter" having CETH No. 85044090 is not a part of Notification issued by State Government for the purpose of schedule entry C-56. The product is not covered by any schedule entry and it falls under residuary entry, E-1and liable to VAT at the rate of 13.5%.
Prospective effect - Held that:- The Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Advance Ruling Authority, may direct that the Advance Ruling shall not affect the liability of the applicant or, if the circumstances so warrant of any other person similarly situated, as respects any sale or purchase effected prior to the Advance Ruling - It is settled principle that the issue of prospective effect is to be considered on fact and circumstances of each case separately. There is no straight jacket formula to say that prospective effect is to be given in typical circumstances.
The applicant cannot prove existence of circumstances which warrant us to use the discretionary power. In fact use of such discretionary powers in the absence of compelling circumstances would be detrimental to legitimate government revenue and would wipe out the legitimate tax liability - we do not allow the use of prospective effect as a tool to protect or to wipe of legitimate tax liability - the pray for granting prospective effect to this order is hereby rejected.
Ruling:- The commodities, namely "Back Bag", "Adopter" and "Tablet" do not find place in the entries of other schedules (A, B, C or D). Hence, they are covered by residuary entry, E-1 of MVAT Act, 2002 and are liable to VAT at the rate of 13.5 per cent as provided in said Schedule From time to time.
The pray to grant prospective effect to this order is rejected.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1621
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - assessee failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon it by furnishing identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties - addition as subscribers have not responded to summons and also failed to file necessary evidence in support of source of income to prove the capacity of the creditor - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the assessing officer, then the department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the assessee company. Therefore, we are of the view that once the assessee has furnished correct name and address of the subscribers to the share application money, it is for the department to re-open the assessment of individual subscribers to the share capital in accordance with law, but additions cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credits.
In the present case, out of the total 20 subscribers to the share application money, two subscribers i.e. (1) Shri B. Maheshwar Goud and (2) Shri K. Shiva Kishore have denied investments in share application money. Shri B. Maheshwar Goud had given in writing that he had never made any investment in share application money of the company. Similarly, Shri K. Shiva Kishore also appeared before the A.O. and gave a statement that he never made any investment in the company. Therefore, we are of the view that wherever the subscribers have denied the investment in share application money, the A.O. was right in making additions towards unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, simply deleted additions made by the A.O. in total. Therefore, we uphold the additions made by the A.O. towards alleged bogus share application money in the case of Shri K. Shiva Kishore for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - decided partly in favour of revenue
-
2017 (1) TMI 1620
Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of pre-deposit - Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that the amount as ordered by the Tribunal on 13-02-2014 has now been paid. There is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application is now pending before the Tribunal - crippling the petitioner at this stage may not be in the interest of either of the parties.
However, the fact remains that the amount that ought to have been paid by the petitioner by April, 2014, had been paid only after a period of two years - by imposing certain restrictions, the Garnishee orders could be lifted.
Appeal restored.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1619
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- It is an agreed position between the Counsel appearing before us that the question as proposed would not give rise to any substantial question of law for the reasons recorded in our earlier order dated 30th November, 2015 [2015 (12) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1618
TPA - Comparable selection criteria - functional dissimilarity - Held that:- The assessee, provided data processing and other IT enabled services to its AEs located in various parts of the world. It is registered under the Software Technology Parks of India Scheme and is claiming tax holiday benefit in respect of the profits earned by it from the research and development services, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Adjustments made in respect of computation u/s 10A - AO excluded the expenditure incurred in foreign currency on travel, from export turn over for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.10A - Assessee pleaded that it is rendering BPO Services and ITES and as not engaged in rendering technical services, the expenditure incurred in foreign currency on travel should not be excluded from the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.10A. - Held that:- Similar matter came up before this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A. Y. 2008-09 [2015 (10) TMI 483 - ITAT BANGALORE] AO is directed to exclude the above expenditure both from ETO and TTO. The assessee's appeal in this regard is allowed.
Addition u/s 43B - leave encashment which remained outstanding as on the last day of the PY - Held that:- When a challenge was made before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd and another v. UOI & others [2007 (6) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ], it struck down section 43B(f) being arbitrary, unconscionable and dehors the Apex Court decision in the case of Bharath Earth Movers Ltd (2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT) as the amendment did not disclose the reasons which would be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the land and not for the sole object of nullifying the apex Court decision. On SLP the SC held that "Pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal, Department is restrained from recovering penalty and interest which has accrued till date. It is made clear that as far as the outstanding interest demand as of date is concerned, it would be open to the Department to recover that amount in case civil appeal of the Department is allowed. In the circumstances, this issue is remitted back to the AO to decide the issue based on the outcome of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the above case. Ordered accordingly
-
2017 (1) TMI 1617
TPA - Computation of operating margins of assessee and comparable companies by including export incentives as operating income - Revenue is in appeal only against inclusion of export incentives in the operating income while computing operating margins of the assessee and the comparable companies - Held that:- The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013 (9) TMI 336 - ITAT MUMBAI] had held that the DEPB benefit received during the year under consideration should be considered as part of turnover of the assessee for working out the profit margins to make the comparison of like to like and similar to similar, where such DEPB benefit was taken into account in the comparable cases while working out their profit margins.
HC in CIT Vs. Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have held that DEPB was includable in arriving at the operating profit and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that export incentives were to be included as operating income of the assessee and the comparables and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed.
TDS u/s 195 - Non deduction of tds on professional fees - case of assessee was that it was reimbursement of cost of allocated expenses and was not technical fees under section 9(1)(vii) or under Article 12 of India-Luxembourg Treaty - whether charges paid to associate enterprises are allowable where tax deducted has not been paid in account of treasury - Held that:- In view of the plea raised by the assessee, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the contentions of assessee with regard to payment of tax at source and in case the same has been paid within time or before the due date of filing the return of income, then the same are to be allowed as expenditure in the hands of assessee. Further, where the entries are on account of reimbursement of expenses and the assessee can establish its claim by verification from bills, then such reimbursements are not amenable to tax to deduction. Certain entries have been reversed and credited to expenditure account itself in the accounting year itself. The Assessing Officer is to verify the same and decide the issue accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance on account of rate difference - AO was of the view that it is contingent liability - Held that :- We find no merit in the orders of authorities below, where the provision on account of rate difference is made in the books of account against the goods supplied by the respective parties and invoices have been received from the said parties against rate difference, details of which are available with the assessee. Further, the assessee has made the payments in respect of said expenditure in the succeeding year. In such circumstances, it is not an unascertained liability but an accrued liability, which has been recognized by the assessee and there is no question of it being contingent liability, since the assessee has already booked purchases in respect thereof. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the provision of ₹ 12 lakhs in the hands of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1616
Transmit the record of the present petition to the Principal Bench - Held that:- In terms of the notification Regd. No.D.L.-33004/99 dated 07.12.2016, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and in particular, Clause 3 thereof, the present petition under Sections 391(2) & 394; 100 to 104 of the Companies Act 1956, stands transferred to the Principal Bench, National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (‘NCLT’). In the first instance, list this matter before the Principal Bench, NCLT on 3rd March 2017 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.
The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the present petition to the Principal Bench, NCLT, forthwith.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1615
Entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) with respect to the intangible assets - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2015 (9) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI] Distribution network rights acquired by the assessee have been found to be in the nature of ‘business or commercial rights’ for the purposes of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Although the Ld. CIT-DR has canvassed that the said finding is erroneous, so however, no specific error has been sought to be made out. - Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation on goodwill - Assessee had acquired Textile effects business from CIBA Speciality Ltd. also the Polyurethane business from ICI Ltd. in the earlier assessment years - Held that:- For both the aforesaid acquisition, assessee had paid a lumpsum consideration and the portion of purchase consideration, which was in excess of the value of tangible and intangible assets was treated as ‘goodwill’. The DRP noted that assessee had made the claim for depreciation on goodwill in the course of assessment before the Assessing Officer but there was no discussion in the draft assessment order. The DRP also noted that in assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case had allowed the claim of the assessee and similar position prevailed in assessment year 2009-10, wherein the Tribunal allowed the claim too - Decided in favour of assessee
Deduction u/s 43B - certain liabilities pertaining to the Textile effects division taken over from CIBA Speciality Ltd. - Held that:- , the direction of the DRP is based on the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2007- 08, which continues to hold the field and, therefore, no fault can be found with the said decision of the DRP. Even otherwise, we find that the said plea of the Revenue is misconceived because in the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer no such deduction has been allowed. The Assessing Officer notes in para 14 of the assessment order that no such claim u/s. 43B of the Act has been put forth and, therefore, no deduction was warranted on this issue. In view of the said discussion in the assessment order, it is quite clear that the said Ground is otherwise also misconceived - decided against revenue
Transfer pricing adjustment - international transactions on account of corporate service charges paid by the assessee to its associated enterprise - matter remitted back for reconsideration
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- No disallowance under section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income actually received by the assessee in the relevant year. We accordingly delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and enhanced by the ld. CIT(Appeals) under section 14A read with Rule 8D. See case of Cheminvest Limited [2009 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B ].
-
2017 (1) TMI 1614
Luxury Tax - levy of luxury tax on every Tobacconist under Section 3A of A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 - vires of Section 3A was challenged by the petitioner - Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that SCN issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, who was not the petitioner before the Supreme Court - Other contention of petitioner is that impugned revised show cause notice makes a demand in respect of two entities one falling within the State of Telangana and another falling within the State of Andhra Pradesh, over the second of which the 2nd respondent can have no jurisdiction after the bifurcation of the State w.e.f. 02.06.2014.
Held that:- It is true that today w.e.f. 31.01.2005, some provisions and w.e.f. 01.04.2005 the other provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have come into force. But insofar as the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 is concerned, the expression “assessing authority” is defined in Section 2(b) to mean the assessing authority appointed under Section 4. Section 4 (1) of the said Act empowers the Government by notification to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred and for performing the functions entrusted to him under the Act - thus, without going into the question whether the 2nd respondent is actually the assessing authority under 1987 Act or not, we are of the considered view that if there is an assessing authority, the expression “petitioners” appearing in paragraph-8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court should be construed to indicate that authority. If he is not the assessing authority, it is always open to the petitioners to raise this objection in their reply to the show cause notice.
Bifurcation of the States and one out of the two units, which is indicated in the impugned show cause notice being located in another State - Held that:- Admittedly, the show cause notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, date d 07.08.2015, has been challenged separately by way of another writ petition. But it is yet to come up for hearing. Therefore, if the claims of both the Commercial Tax Officers are actually sustainable in law, assuming that they are sustainable, the petitioner can always raise a valid point that there cannot be overlap of the claims. There cannot be two demands by two different authorities in respect of one liability - the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not appeal to us to entertain the writ petition, especially at the stage of show cause notice, when the Supreme Court has granted liberty to whoever it is to issue show cause notice and proceed further. Therefore, it is found that there is no justification to entertain the writ petition at this stage.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1613
Allowing set off current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - Scheme of amalgamation - Held that:- Prior to date of sanction by BIFR and higher Courts, there is provision in the scheme that business done by Modern Terry Towels Ltd. shall be on behalf of the appellant company. The importance of the registration of reference cannot be undermined as once a reference is registered, the provisions of SICA get triggered.
There can hardly be and doubt that once a scheme is formulated after a reference is gone through the process of Sections 17 & 18 of the SICA, the said scheme would have the force of law notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Thus, neither the party making any concessions at the time of formulation of the scheme nor the company at whose behest the scheme is formulated and sanctioned can get out of the scheme. Accordingly, direct the AO to allow set off of current year losses and brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. as per Section 72A against the income of the appellant. At the same time, the AO shall pass a protective assessment order in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2008-09 presuming that no amalgamation has taken place.
Deduction u/Section 40(a) - Retrospectivity - Held that:- Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.E.India Technologies Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that in case whole remittance is not chargeable in India then there is no question of tax at source being deducted. Since the tax at source is nor required to be deducted then Section 40(a) will not be applicable. It is further noticed that Section 40((a)(ia) refers to commission payable to a resident. Hence, this provision is not at all applicable. Section 40(a) is applicable in respect of payments to non-resident and the payment should be in the nature of interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act. It is undisputed fact that the sum is commission and the word commission is not specifically mentioned in Section 40(a). The sum paid is not chargeable in India under Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, Section 40(a) is not applicable
-
2017 (1) TMI 1612
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D - Disallowance towards delayed payment of employee contribution of ESI and PF. - Held that:- We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches in earlier years. Admittedly, there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the case nor is there any change in the legal position. No contrary authority has been brought to the notice of the Bench other than what have been considered by the Coordinate Benches in earlier years. Further, the decisions of the Coordinate Benches against which the Revenue is in further appeal before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.
Hence, following the decision for earlier years, decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1611
Whether the royalty is a subject to tax or not?
Held that:- This issue is sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [2011 (3) TMI 1554 - SUPREME COURT] - appellants are granted liberty to come again after having final verdict from the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a prescribed time - appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1610
Rejection of books of accounts - Estimation of income - The assessee stated that the bills and vouchers are not available for production. Considering this, the AO observed that in absence of bills and vouchers, correctness and genuineness of expenses is not verifiable. - CIT(A) estimated the income @5% - Held that:- Considering the past accepted results of the assessee, I am of the considered view that estimation of income of the assessee by applying the net profit rate of 4% will meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, modify the order of the CIT(A) accordingly and partly allow the ground of the appeal of the assessee. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1609
Whether simultaneous benefit of refund as well as draw back can be claimed under Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007?
Held that:- The exemption N/N. 41/2007-ST is rendered inapplicable in the case of such exports, where the appellant claimed drawback under the Drawback Rules - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
............
|
9911796707
