|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 935 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 723
Cessation of liability of sundry creditors, invoking provisions of section 41(1) - Held that:- It is only after the completion of the arguments that the assessee has come with a new fact that he has been regularly repaying the loan amount to the creditors as detailed in the list. This type of explanation given by the assessee at this stage seems to be suspicious. However, the interest of justice demands that this explanation, though suspicious, is required to be verified. If the assessee has really repaid the amount to the creditors then it will be injustice to him, if the amount is added to his income. Under such circumstances, we remand this case back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law and with direction to scrutinize, verify and make necessary investigations regarding the genuineness of the assessee’s claim of repayment to the sundry creditors
-
2013 (2) TMI 722
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and Right to Reside in the Property.
2. Grant of Interim Mandatory Injunction.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Non-disclosure.
4. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm.
Summary:
Ownership and Right to Reside in the Property:
The plaintiff, father-in-law of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2, claimed sole ownership of the property at B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, purchased via a sale deed dated 10.8.1971. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to direct defendant No.1 to vacate the premises and a permanent injunction to restrain her from disturbing his peaceful possession. The court noted that the property is self-acquired by the plaintiff and not a shared household u/s 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as it does not belong to the joint family or rented by defendant No.2.
Grant of Interim Mandatory Injunction:
The court discussed the principles for granting interim mandatory injunctions, emphasizing the need to prevent irreparable harm and maintain balance of convenience. The court found a strong prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, noting the plaintiff's and his wife's advanced age and health conditions. The court referenced several judgments, including S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, to support the view that a daughter-in-law has no right to reside in a property owned by her parents-in-law.
Allegations of Fraud and Non-disclosure:
Defendant No.1's counsel argued that the plaintiff suppressed material facts about his residence in Calcutta, violating the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court acknowledged that it would have been better for the plaintiff to disclose this fact but concluded that it did not amount to suppression of material facts that would disqualify the plaintiff from equitable relief. The court focused on the plaintiff's right to reside in his Delhi property.
Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Harm:
The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, noting the continuous harassment by defendant No.1 and the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff and his wife. The court directed defendant No.1 to vacate the property within one month and allowed her to shift to a rented accommodation offered by defendant No.2 or accept Rs. 30,000 towards rent, pending the decision on her maintenance application.
Conclusion:
The court granted the interim mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, directing defendant No.1 to vacate the property and hand over possession to the plaintiff within one month. The court also directed the concerned court to decide on defendant No.1's maintenance application, including her right to a commensurate residence, within one month.
-
2013 (2) TMI 721
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10.
Summary:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of ld.CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad, challenging the deletion of disallowance of &8377; 54,66,397/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10.
2. The main issue was whether section 40(a)(ia) could be applied for disallowance of TDS deposited before the due date of filing the return. The TDS was deducted as per IT Act provisions and paid in June-2009, but the AO disallowed &8377; 54,63,397/- stating it should have been deposited before 31/03/2009.
3. The first appellate authority relied on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creations and allowed the claim.
4. The Revenue referred to the Gem Granites vs. CIT case for legal argument on the interpretation of the Statute, but it was deemed inapplicable as the High Courts had already interpreted section 40(a)(ia).
5. The issue was found to be covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, stating that no disallowance should be made if TDS is deposited before the return filing due date. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on these decisions.
6. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 720
Disallowance of foreign currency derivative loss by treating it as speculation loss - Held that:- Forex contracts entered into by the assessee will not fall under the definition of “speculative transaction”. Decided in favour of assessee.
Excluding duty draw back for the purpose of computing relief under sec.80IB confirmed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 719
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the area of the plot of land on which the eligible housing project is undertaken by the assessee complies with the condition laid down in section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) despite the Assessing Officer's objections regarding ownership and demarcation of the land.
Summary:
Issue 1: Compliance with Section 80IB(10)(c)
The revenue challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Pune, which allowed the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08. The primary issue was whether the area of the plot of land on which the housing project "Bhujbal Township" was undertaken complied with the condition laid down in section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act. The assessee, a construction firm, claimed a deduction u/s 80IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,05,56,550/-. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed this deduction, arguing that the area of the plot was not properly demarcated to identify that it was more than 1 acre. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's plea that the area of the plot on which the residential project was constructed was more than one acre and that the demarcation was not a precondition for the deduction.
Issue 2: Entitlement to Deduction u/s 80IB(10)
The A.O. contended that the assessee was not the owner of the land and merely had development rights, thus not entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB(10). The Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had exclusive ownership rights and complete dominion over the plot of 4902 sq.mtrs., which was more than 1 acre. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the definition of "plot" as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act was irrelevant in the context of section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the cases of Radhe Developers and Shakti Corporation, which held that acquisition of development rights through a development agreement was sufficient for claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the project was situated on a piece of land admeasuring 4902 sq.mtrs. and that the assessee had complete dominion over this land. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the percentage completion method, subject to the condition that if the project was not completed within the stipulated period, the deduction would be withdrawn.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessee's project, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
-
2013 (2) TMI 718
The ITAT Hyderabad dismissed appeals by assessees against orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) IV, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessees did not appear for the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. They have the option to file a petition for order recall if there is a valid reason for their absence.
-
2013 (2) TMI 717
Issues involved: Appeal against orders of CIT(A)-7 Mumbai for AY 2007-08 regarding nonchargeability of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on various expenses incurred by appellant-companies.
Grounds of Appeal:
Ground No.I - FBT on Expenditure:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on expenses incurred by appellant on Telephone Expenses, Travel Expenses, Conference & Meeting, and Business Promotion.
- Appellant seeks deletion of the addition for calculating FBT.
Ground No.II - Mobile Phone Expenses:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on Mobile Phone Expenses.
- Appellant requests deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Ground No.III - Travelling Expenses:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on domestic & foreign traveling expenses.
- Appellant prays for deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Ground No.IV - Conference & Meeting:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on conference and meeting expenses.
- Appellant seeks deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Ground No.V - Business Promotion:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on Business Promotion expenses.
- Appellant requests deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Ground No.VI - Gifts:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on gifts expenses.
- Appellant prays for deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Ground No.VII - Hotel Boarding and Lodging:
- CIT(A) confirmed addition of value of fringe benefit on hotel boarding and lodging expenses.
- Appellant seeks deletion of the addition for FBT calculation.
Additional Details:
- AO determined values of FB for various expenses during assessment proceedings.
- FAAs upheld AO's additions for AY 2006-07, which are part of current appeals.
- AR agreed to send the matter back to AO for fresh adjudication based on previous ITAT order.
- ITAT 'A' Bench restored similar issues back to AO for fresh adjudication in previous cases.
- Current appeals allowed for statistical purposes, matter restored to AO for further consideration.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, the specific grounds of appeal raised by the appellants, and the subsequent actions taken by the ITAT Mumbai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 716
Issues Involved:1. Addition u/s 41(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of payments for technical advisory and management fees. 3. Depreciation on trademarks and licenses. Summary:Issue 1: Addition u/s 41(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to scale down an addition of Rs. 6.10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Rs. 3.78 lakhs. The AO noted that seven trade creditors had credit balances totaling Rs. 6,10,880/- which remained constant for three years. The AO added these amounts, considering them not repayable. The CIT(A) found that Rs. 2,32,334/- had been offered as income for the assessment year 2011-12 and reduced the addition accordingly. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO could not show compelling circumstances to justify the addition for the assessment year 2008-09. Issue 2: Disallowance of payments for technical advisory and management feesThe Revenue contested the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 4 Crores claimed by the assessee for payments made to M/s United Breweries Limited (UBL) for technical advisory and management fees. The AO disallowed the payment, questioning its commercial expediency and lack of specific evidence. The CIT(A) found the payment justified, noting the foreign partner's involvement and the revenue-neutral nature of the transaction. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the payment was acknowledged by UBL, and the transaction was revenue neutral, thus justifying the deletion of the disallowance. Issue 3: Depreciation on trademarks and licensesThe Revenue disputed the allowance of Rs. 1.31 Crores claimed as depreciation on trademarks and licenses acquired by the assessee from M/s Empee Distilleries Limited. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, where it upheld the claim of depreciation. The Tribunal reiterated that the assessee had acquired the trademarks and licenses legitimately and had been allowed depreciation since the assessment year 2003-04. The CIT(A) was found justified in deleting the disallowance, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground. Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all contested issues.
-
2013 (2) TMI 715
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the assessee would be entitled to the tax rebate u/s.88E of the Act where its income is assessed on the basis of book profit, i.e., u/s. 115JB of the Act.
Details of the judgment:
Issue 1: Entitlement to tax rebate u/s.88E of the Act:
The controversy in this case revolves around the entitlement of the assessee to the tax rebate u/s.88E of the Act when its income is assessed based on book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. The Revenue argues that the tax rebate u/s.88E should be considered after reducing the tax payable by the assessee. On the other hand, the assessee contends that the tax rebate u/s.88E is independent of the manner in which the tax liability under the Act is determined. The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Horizon Capital Ltd., held that the tax rebate u/s.88E is to be allowed to the assessee regardless of whether the tax is payable under the regular provisions of the Act or on the basis of book profit u/s.115JB. The legislative intent behind providing the tax rebate u/s.88E is to avoid double payment of tax on income from security transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the benefit of section 88E is available even when the total income under the Act is assessed u/s.115JB.
Issue 2: Determination of tax rebate u/s.88E:
During the hearing, the ld. DR argued that the tax rebate u/s.88E should only be with reference to the tax on the business income from securities transactions disclosed or assessed by the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing that the tax rebate u/s.88E aims to provide relief in respect of tax already paid to prevent double taxation. Therefore, only the eligible tax arising from income from security transactions, whether assessed under the regular provisions of the Act or under the book profit provisions, qualifies for the tax rebate u/s.88E. Additionally, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's plea regarding the determination of the quantum of the tax rebate under s.88E(2) based on the clear language of the relevant provisions and in alignment with the legislative intent behind the provision of s.88E as explained in the case of Horizon Capital Ltd.
In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the Revenue's appeal in favor of the assessee, affirming the entitlement to the tax rebate u/s.88E even when the income is assessed based on book profit u/s.115JB of the Act.
-
2013 (2) TMI 714
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
(i) Whether construction of buildings on vacant land constitutes a new project for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10).
(ii) Whether adjoining flats approved as separate units can be treated as one unit for deduction purposes.
(iii) Whether built-up area includes balcony and terrace for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10).
(iv) Whether obtaining a fresh commencement certificate makes the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10).
Issue (i):
The Tribunal held that construction of buildings G, H & I on vacant land by Ankit Developers constitutes a new project, allowing the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) despite the previous development of Maestro project by KDPL. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the new construction was distinct from the prior project.
Issue (ii):
The Tribunal found that two adjoining flats, approved by the local authority as separate units with individual completion certificates, cannot be considered as one unit for calculating the built-up area under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. As the decision was a matter of fact, the High Court declined to entertain this question.
Issue (iii):
Given the High Court's decision on the treatment of adjoining flats as separate units, the question of whether the built-up area includes balcony and terrace for deduction u/s 80IB(10) was deemed irrelevant for consideration.
Issue (iv):
The Tribunal's ruling that obtaining a fresh commencement certificate after the transfer of development rights made the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) was admitted for further consideration by the High Court. The Court acknowledged the significance of the timing of the commencement certificate in determining eligibility for the deduction.
This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the issues raised in the judgment and the corresponding decisions made by the High Court for each issue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 713
Issues Involved: Disallowance of interest on late payment of MVAT Act, 2002 claimed u/s.37(1) of MVAT Act, 2002.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest on Late Payment
The assessee appealed against the order of the ld CIT(A) -II, Thane, which disallowed the interest on late payment of MVAT Act, 2002 amounting to &8377; 6,41,348. The AO contended that the payment was due to default in making statutory dues on time, hence not for the purpose of business. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the newness of the business and late realization of funds from creditors. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT observed that the assessee paid simple interest on self-assessment basis as prescribed in the Act. Citing legal precedents, including judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts, the ITAT held that interest on late payment of MVAT is an allowable deduction u/s.37(1). Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, reversing the decisions of the lower authorities.
This judgment addresses the issue of disallowance of interest on late payment of MVAT Act, 2002 claimed u/s.37(1) of MVAT Act, 2002. The assessee's appeal against the disallowance was successful based on legal precedents supporting the deduction of such interest as a business expense.
-
2013 (2) TMI 712
Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of expenditure incurred in earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that assessee did not demonstrate before the A.O. that the funds used for acquiring shares of LVL were its own funds and also that section 10 of the Act provides for a deduction of net income and not gross income? - Held that:- Tribunal in the impugned order upheld the finding of the CIT(A) wherein a finding of fact has been reached that the dividend earned on shares by the respondent assessee is from its investments in shares out of the respondent-assessee's own funds. Consequently, the question of invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 to disallow expenditure would not arise. Before the Tribunal, the revenue did not challenge the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (b).
Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to accept the method followed by the assessee without considering the fact that the commission received is in nature of a fee for issuance of guarantee and is not a contingent receipt and thus not returnable at the end of guarantee period? - Held that:- Decision of the Tribunal in upholding the order of the CIT(A) is a conclusion based on a finding of fact and hence, we do not see any reason to entertain question (c).
Appeal admitted on question (a) - Whether the ITAT is correct in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of interest paid by Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its head office and other overseas branch without considering the fact that the payments made by the branch to the Head office is considered interest and such interest is taxable under Article 13? -
-
2013 (2) TMI 711
Whether deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be allowed without adjustment of losses of other units and without adjustment of brought forward losses and/or its depreciation of earlier years - Decided in favour of assessee. See Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd.[2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] as held Section 10A is a provision which is in the nature of a deduction and not an exemption - the deduction under Section 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business - Section 80B(5) defines for the purposes of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter – Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (2) TMI 710
Transfer pricing adjustment - foreign exchange gain - Held that:- Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee. Moreover, Ld. TPO has clearly observed that to bring parity of the comparables with the assessee, foreign exchange gain is included as well in the case of comparables and after including such gain of the comparables, he has re-worked the margin of the comparable entities. However, while computing the margin of the assessee, TPO ignored the gain of the assessee on foreign exchange. Therefore, the adjustment computed by the TPO is contrary to his observations. If the gain on foreign exchange is included, then there is no short-fall in the arm length price determined by the TPO. The computation has already been made after including such gain and it has been seen that there is no short-fall in the profits of the assessee as compared to the arm length price profit determined by the TPO.
We found that the adjustment made by the TPO and upheld by DRP deserves to be deleted
-
2013 (2) TMI 709
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
3. Validity of the penalty in light of judicial precedents.
Summary:
1. Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The assessee challenged the order dated 9th March 2012, which upheld the penalty of Rs. 14,40,651/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the profit was offered at 8% of the contract receipts, accepted by the department, and the return was filed before the issuance of notice u/s 148. Hence, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, making the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) non-leviable.
2. Concealment of Income and Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars:
The department conducted a survey u/s 133A on 8.8.2008, revealing that the assessee did not file returns for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The gross contract receipts of Rs. 5,35,00,088/- from M/s Suzelon Infrastructure Services Limited were not declared. The statement of the director admitted discrepancies in the books of accounts and agreed to offer taxable income of Rs. 42,80,007/-. The department argued that the income was detected due to the survey, not voluntarily disclosed by the assessee, indicating concealment.
3. Validity of the Penalty in Light of Judicial Precedents:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and relevant explanations, emphasizing that if the conditions are satisfied, the penalty is mandatory. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, which clarified that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal also considered cases where penalties were upheld due to non-voluntary disclosure of income following departmental detection.
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's action was not suo motu but prompted by the survey, and the penalty was rightly levied. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was upheld due to the concealment of income detected by the department during the survey. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, affirming the penalty's validity.
-
2013 (2) TMI 708
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI rejected appeals due to delay in filing after limitation period, citing Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises case (2008). The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. Stay petitions and appeals were both rejected.
-
2013 (2) TMI 707
Bogus purchases - Held that:- The primary onus which laid upon the Assessee was discharged. It was upon the Assessing Officer to prove that these documents are not genuine.Once these documents have not been adversely commented, it cannot be held that the entire purchases with these parties are bogus. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the various evidences, as discussed above, we partly set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hold that the entire purchases aggregating to ₹ 82,84,497, from the four parties are genuine and, therefore, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Commission brokerage - Held that:- All these payments have been made to these persons through account payee cheque who are duly assessed to tax and have shown these commissions as their income. The learned CIT(A) has noted the nature of services rendered which was mainly on account of negotiation of the rates, timely execution of the order and delivery of goods identifying the customers / purchases and host of other responsibility. The details of transactions have also been incorporated by the learned CIT(A). Based on these evidences and nature of services, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the said addition. We, thus, do not find any reason to deviate from such findings - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (2) TMI 706
Issues:
1. Dispute over the method of computation of wastage of Extra Neutral Alcohol.
2. Challenge against the demand of interest by the appellant.
3. Applicability of Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act vs. Section 3 of the Interest Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a dispute between a distillery and the Excise Department regarding the computation of wastage of Extra Neutral Alcohol. The appellant argued for a combined computation of all vats, while the respondents insisted on separate vat computation. The court upheld the petitioner's claim for adjustment of amounts due from the respondents, directing a reassessment by the 2nd respondent. It was decided that interest, if applicable, should follow the provisions of Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The appellant challenged the demand for interest, arguing that interest should only be payable from the date of a specific demand as per Section 3 of the Interest Act. The court disagreed, stating that the Revenue Recovery Act governs the case, allowing for interest on the principal amount. The court emphasized the need for the appellant to compensate the State for the delay in payment, justifying the interest under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed.
3. The judgment clarifies that the Revenue Recovery Act applies to the case, allowing for the recovery of interest on the principal amount. The court highlighted the obligation of the appellant to compensate for the loss incurred by the State due to delayed payment, justifying the imposition of interest as per Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The court rejected the appellant's argument that Section 3 of the Interest Act should prevail, emphasizing the State's right to claim interest under the Revenue Recovery Act.
-
2013 (2) TMI 705
Waste and scrap - dutiability - waste and scrap generated and retained by job-worker - Held that: - Tribunal in the case of Rocket Engineering Corpn. Ltd. [2005 (6) TMI 184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that waste and scrap generated at job workers end subsequent to 1-4-2000 is not dutiable in the hands of principal manufacturer - as the issue stand covered by the decision of the Tribunal and the period involved is subsequent to 1-4-2000, following the judgement, the demand is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (2) TMI 704
The High Court of Allahabad in 2013 (2) TMI 704 allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notice. Any actions taken based on the notice, such as assessment or penalty orders, were also set aside.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
