|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 1707 Records
-
2016 (7) TMI 1391
Resale of the used motor vehicle - Claim of Exemption on sale of motor cars or other capital assets u/s 6(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) - motor cars to be treated as plant or not - the decision in the case of Anand Decors, Print-N-Wrap, Diwan Saheb Fashins Pvt. Ltd. Al-Pack Industries, Afflatus International, , Meenabazar, Agarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., B And M Corporation, East West Linkers Versus Commissioner of Trade And Taxes, New Delhi [2014 (12) TMI 1024 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - leave granted.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1390
CENVAT credit - input services - GTA service for transportation of finished goods from depot to the customer premises - freight charges on auction service - Held that: - With regard to availment of Cenvat credit on GTA service, the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. CCEST, Bangalore [2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2(1)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services - credit allowed.
Auction service - Held that: - auction service is entitled for availment of Cenvat credit - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1389
Assessment of purchase value of shares as income of the assessee - addition relating to estimated expenditure - denial of natural justice - Held that:- AO was not justified in not affording the opportunity of cross examination to the assessees herein and the said action of the AO violates the principles of natural justice. Further, as submitted by the Ld A.R, the assessing officer has made the impugned additions only on the basis of statement given by Shri Mukesh Choksi. Accordingly, it is of the view that the assessees herein should be provided with adequate opportunity to crossexamine Shri Mukesh Chokashi. Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1388
Depreciation in respect of assets leased - miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee-bank seeking modification of the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal as has not considered the finding given by this Tribunal earlier wherein directed the AO to allow depreciation in respect of assets leased to M/s.Rajendra Steels and M/s.Kedia Group of Companies
Held that:- As in the light of this order, there was no need to set aside the issue relating to depreciation and the assets leased to back M/s.Rajendra Steels and M/s.Kedia Group of Companies to the file of the AO to. Accordingly, the said direction is modified as under:
“Since the Tribunal, in ITA Nos.765, 766 & 767/Bang/2011 had directed the AO to allow depreciation in respect of leased assets to M/s.Rajendra Steels and M/s.Kedia Group of Companies, accordingly, we also direct the AO to allow depreciation on assets leased to M/s.Rajendra Steels and M/s.Kedia Group of Companies in accordance with order of the Tribunal in the above appeals. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
-
2016 (7) TMI 1387
Determination of ALV of the property - Held that:- CIT (A) has thoroughly discussed the factual aspects and has found that the AO has determined the fair market value on the basis of a vague and general report of the Inspector. There was no credible and reliable evidence before the AO for arriving at the fair market value of the properties. Even, the municipal valuation of the properties was much lower than the actual rent received by the assessee. There was no evidence on record that similarly placed properties like that of the assessee were having higher rental value than that was offered by the assessee. The impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is quite elaborative and is based on a very well reasoning. We do not find any infirmity in his order while deleting the addition made by the AO in respect to the ALV of the properties question. Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss these grounds of appeal of the Revenue.
Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - assessee had claimed the netting of the interest income & expenditure and then to consider the net interest expenditure for disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- For assessment year 2008-09 wherein the Tribunal, on identical facts and circumstances, as are in the year under consideration, has allowed the netting of interest and has held that the disallowance of interest should be made with reference to the net interest only. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT (A) directing the AO to verify the figures given by the assessee and to take into consideration only net interest if any, for computation of disallowance of expenditure under Rule 8D of the Rules. The Tribunal has further upheld the findings of the learned CIT (A) allowing bifurcation of the expenses between the Head Office and Regional Offices and to re-compute the disallowance on proportionate basis relatable to the Head Office only. It has been further noted by the CIT (A) in the impugned order that the AO has followed the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal while completing the re-opened assessment for assessment year 2007-08 and regular assessment for assessment year 2010-11. The learned CIT (A) accordingly has directed the AO to verify the allocation of the expenses as well as calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules with the same methodology which has been directed to be adopted in the assessment year 2008-09. Even, similar method has been adopted by the AO for earlier assessment year 2007-08 and subsequent assessment year 2010-11. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in this issue also and the same is accordingly upheld. There is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1386
Transfer of cases u/s 127 - case of the petitioner is transferred from IT ward 3(3)(3), Ahmedabad to DCIT,Central Circle-3, Surat - non-compliance of principles of natural justice - Held that:- The notice of hearing dated 14.10.2015 fixing the date of hearing on 26.10.2015 came to be received by the petitioner on 27.10.2015 i.e. after the actual date of hearing. It also emerges from the record that within a very short period, reply came to be prepared on 29.10.2015 and submitted before the authority on 30.10.2015. But by that time, it was informed that order has already been passed and therefore, it clearly establishes from the record that no opportunity in actual terms is afforded to the petitioner. It is also required to be noticed that immediately upon noticing effect of order having been passed, repeatedly a request was made in protest of the same, but having been not paid any heed, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition. From the chronology of the events, it clearly reflects from the record that the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 is passed in defiance of principles of natural justice and therefore, in true sense, compliance of section 127 of the Act is not made by the respondent no.1 and therefore, this being the position on record, on this ground alone, the order impugned deserves to be quashed.
The petitioner has specifically pointed out that he has even no remote connection with said M/s. HVK International Group, Surat. In the detailed reply submitted before the authority, it was brought to the notice that the petitioner is not at all directly or indirectly connected nor having any financial transactions with the said group. It was also specifically asserted that search operation was under mistaken belief. From the record of the case, even a certificate is issued by the said M/s. HVK International Group dated 3.12.2015 in which it was specifically submitted that there is no business or financial transaction or any connection with the present petition. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of tranfer passed by respondent no.1 authority is hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1385
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans from various persons - not only the identity was established but the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors were well proved as said by CIT-A and ITAT - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that all the cash creditors have not only placed on record the entire material but have also affirmed in their examination that they had advanced money to the assessee from their own respective bank accounts and when even the AO finds only minor discrepancies in the statements recorded but as found that the money came from the respective bank accounts of the creditors, then we are in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal There is no evidence as alleged by the AO that the money actually belonged to none but he assessee himself. The said finding if any is based on mere suspicion.
In view of what we have noticed hereinbefore, the finding by the learned Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact based on the material on record after appreciation of evidence and in our view, no question of law much less substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference of this Court. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (7) TMI 1384
Bidding process - finalization of tender - non disclosure of minimum wage figure - Held that:- Unfortunately, even though the High Court noticed the open ended nature of Respondent No.1’s bid, it went on to add that the offer of Respondent No.1 shall be treated as matching with the revised minimum wage calculation and that it is nowhere envisaged by the tender conditions that rejection of an offer which may have the potential of causing loss to the tenderer is present. It is not for the High Court to revisit a condition contained in Annexure 2 read with 2.5.5 of the tender in the manner aforesaid. Once the tender condition states that the tender must strictly conform to the format provided in Annexure 2, and Annexure 2 in turn clearly states that if the component of salary quoted is less than the minimum wage prescribed, the bid is liable to be rejected, and the High Court cannot hold otherwise. High Court was not correct in treating Respondent No.1’s offer as matching with the revised minimum wage calculation, as that would make a new contract between the parties that the parties have not made themselves.
As seen that the present tender has not gotten off the ground since May 2015, and one year’s precious time has been wasted due to litigation between the parties. We must hasten to add that the Government of Gujarat is partly to blame for this inasmuch as it arrived at a minimum wage figure and did not disclose the same to the tendering parties twice. Even in the second round of litigation, the Government did not disclose the newly arrived at minimum wage figure of ₹ 2,91,00,000/- to the two persons in the fray before us. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have asked the Government to disclose the second figure of minimum wage and restart the tendering process. However, we do not think that the justice of the case requires us to do so, for two reasons. First and foremost, Respondent No.1 before us has clearly violated the strict terms of the tender condition on every occasion and hence cannot be given relief.
And, secondly, we already find that due to litigation the present tender has not taken off for over one year. In the absence of malafides, and indeed the High Court judgment has found that malafides did not vitiate the calculation of minimum wage by the Labour Department, we cannot accept Shri Divan’s submission that the figure of ₹ 2,91,00,000/- was tailor made to suit the bid offered by the Appellant herein. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the Gujarat High Court and allow the Government to proceed further in finalizing the tender in favour of the Appellant herein.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1383
Condonation of delay of 311 days in filing appeal - the decision in the case of M/s COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] contested - Held that: - There is a delay of 311 days in filing the appeal for which no proper explanation is given by the learned counsel for the appellant - delay cannot be condoned - COD Application dismissed
-
2016 (7) TMI 1382
Classification of export goods - residue left from the extraction of soyabean oil which is covered under Chapter Heading 2304 of CETA - Held that: - in the present case an intelligence was collected by the officers of headquarters preventive branch of their Commissionerate that the plant of the petitioner is based on solvent extraction technology and they are exporting residue left from the extraction of soyabean, which is covered under Chapter Heading No. 2304 and not under Chapter Heading No. 1208 of CETA, 1985 and the petitioner has taken inadmissible incentive from the office of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade under VKGUY scheme of Chapter 3 - the matter is sub-judice before the respondent No. 1-Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Indore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1381
Import of Nylon Filament Yarn - Denial of Exemption form CVD under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - the decision in the case of M/s SRF Ltd., M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs (Import And General) , New Delhi [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT] contested, where it was held that appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02 - Held that: - there are no error, much less apparent error, in the order impugned - review petition dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1380
Penalty - - Held that: - the issue is covered by judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles v. CCE, Indore [2009 (5) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where in the identical set of circumstances the demand of duty and interest was upheld and penalty was set aside - the appellant was contesting the earlier show cause notice and started following the decision once it was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the contention of ld. DR is devoid of force - penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1379
Valuation - Misdeclaration - Undervaluation - violation of the principles of natural justice - decision in the case of M/s DJP International Versus C.C. (ICD) , New Delhi [2015 (10) TMI 496 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that Proprietor of the appellant having admitted to the valuation and having forgone the requirement of a show cause notice or personal hearing. It is pertinent to mention here that the said voluntary statement of the proprietor was never retracted and even during the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) the plea that the statement was taken under duress was not taken - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1378
Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - cum-tax computation - deposit of tax which was not leviable - Service tax was paid as Clubs or associations service on amounts collected as entrance fee for admission of new members - the decision in the case of The Cricket Club of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2015 (9) TMI 1389 - CESTAT MUMBAI] contested, where it was held that tax burden has not been transferred to the members from whom entrance fees were collected. Clearly, the service tax so paid does not carry the taint of unjust enrichment - Held that: - delay condoned - appeal admitted.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1377
Applicability of benefits of Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany on freight income - claim of the Assessing Officer was that though in principle assessee was eligible for the benefits under Article-8 of the India-Germany, DTAA, but the profits relating to the goods transported through feeder vessels would not qualify for the benefits of Article -8 of the treaty - Held that:- In a similar situation in assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (IT) vs. Balaji Shipping U.K. Ltd., (2012 (8) TMI 681 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that the benefits of the DTAA between India and Germany would be available to the assessee even in respect of revenues earned from Feeder vessels obtained by the assessee by slot hire arrangements. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (7) TMI 1376
Exemption from sales tax - eligibility certificate - purchases of the raw material without payment of sales tax was the benefit provided to appellant vide various notifications - The VAT Act was activated with effect from 01.04.2006 and with that, the State Government rescinded all exemption notifications issued under the Sales Tax Act. On 18.08.2006, the State Government issued a fresh exemption notification under the VAT Act concerning certain specified industries which did not include the industry in which the appellant was engaged - interpretation of the terms of the exemption notification dated 27.02.2009.
Held that: - This notification envisages grant of refund to the certified manufacturer amount of tax separately charged by a registered dealer from whom he has purchased the goods subject to certain conditions. Para 1 refers to the eligibility and provides that a registered dealer who is manufacturer of a specified goods and who has obtained eligibility certificate prior to 01.04.2006 from Khadi Commissioner or Khadi Board and the exemption certificate from the Commissioner under the provisions of the earlier law, would be eligible. Thus, the basic eligibility required a registered dealer to be a manufacturer of specified goods and should have obtained eligibility certificate from Khadi Commissioner or Khadi Board as the case may be and exemption certificate from the Commissioner under the provisions of the earlier law prior to 01.04.2006. Paragraph No.2 of the notification provides the procedure for claiming such refund. Clause1 thereof requires the eligible dealer to apply in prescribed format within 30 days from the date of issue of the notification. Upon receipt of such application, the Commissioner would issue entitlement certificate provided the conditions of the notification were fulfilled.
Paragraph 3 pertains to general conditions. Clause 3 thereof provides that the refund would be granted with effect from 01.04.2006 for the period specified in the eligibility certificate issued by the appropriate authority or till the manufacturer of the goods does not exceed the quantity approved by the appropriate authority as specified in the eligibility certificate whichever occurs earlier. As per Clause4 of paragraph 3, the refund would be granted only for the purchases used in manufacturing of specified goods sold within the time limit mentioned in clause3.
Retrospective withdrawal of exemption certificates - Held that: - The withdrawal of exemption benefits already granted for the period of extended eligibility certificates issued by the appropriate authority on the basis of which, the Commissioners had also granted exemption certificates. Though, we have held that the notification dated 27.02.2009 did not envisage grant of exemptions after expiry of the initial period of eligibility either in original or under renewal as per the eligibility certificate which a dealer would be enjoying as on 01.04.2006, the question of withdrawing such benefits once granted even if under erroneous belief, would stand on a different footing - For various reasons, it would not be open for the department to withdraw the same. First and foremost, we have serious doubt about the very power of the authority to suomotu recall such exemption certificates. The notification itself makes no such reference. Para No.8 of the notification envisages cancellation of the certificate issued by the Commissioner if the certified manufacturer contravenes any of the conditions of the notification and/or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made in this behalf. This condition essentially would apply in a case where manufacturer contravenes the provisions of the Act or the Rules or conditions of the notification and has no reference to recalling a certificate already granted on erroneous application of the notification. Contravention of the conditions of the notification and error on part of the authority to grant a certificate are two entirely different concepts. In some of the cases, we notice that the withdrawal of the certificate of exemption has been done by the same authority and in some cases, though the same was approved by the higher authority during audit assessments. This would be additional grounds to hold that the retrospective withdrawal of the exemption certificates were bad in law.
Quite apart from this, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the tax in question being an indirect tax, if it is otherwise not exempt, it is always open for the dealer to pass on the same to the successive dealer or the consumer as the case may be. Having granted such exemption, it would cause enormous financial hardship to the dealer if the same were to be withdrawn, that too for no fault on his part - wherever despite the notification dated 27.02.2009, the benefit of exemption was granted on the basis of eligibility certificate renewed by the Khadi Commissioner or Khadi Board and on the basis of which, certificate of exemption was also granted by the Commissioner, such benefits cannot be withdrawn.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1375
Deduction u/s 80HH/801/801A - Activity of mere bottling of LPG gas into gas cylinders amounts to production or manufacturing activity - Held that:- We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal holding that it is entitled to the benefit of Section 80HH and 80I/80IA of the Act, in respect of its LPG Bottling Plants by following the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited).[2013 (5) TMI 124 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
-
2016 (7) TMI 1374
Deduction under section 80-I/80-IA on vatav, kasar and discount income and sales tax set off - Held that:- So far as issue with regard to Vatav, kasar, incidental charges and advances written off are concerned, the same is covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Nirma Ltd. reported in [2014 (10) TMI 388 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. So far as issued with regard to vatav, kasar, discount and sales tax set-off under section 80-I is concerned, the same is covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in [2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
Netting of interest is concerned, the same will be now governed by the decision of the apex court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd v. CIT reported in [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as held that Ninety per cent of not the gross interest/rent but only the net interest/rent, which has been included in the profits of the business of the assessee as computed under the heads ‘PGBP’ is to be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC for determining the profits of the business. Matter remanded back to A.O. to work out the deductions – Decided in favor of assessee
Allowance of job work charges confirmed.
Refund of excise duty - Held that:- The same is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works [2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME Court]. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Expenditure on effluent treatment plant - allowable business expenditure - Held that:- A similar issue has come up before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. [1975 (11) TMI 42 - GUJARAT High Court] wherein it was held that the assessee being member of federation of Gujarat Mills and Industries, contribute a sum of ₹ 5,000 for construction of a building and auditorium and the amount was held to be an allowable deduction. In addition to coming to the conclusion that there was commonality of business it was further held that the expenditure was in connection with the expansion of the existing business. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court, we are of the opinion that the contribution made by the assessee is an allow able deduction and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in allowing the same
Foreign exchange fluctuation under section 80-IA allowability - Held that:- This issue will be now governed by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Priyanka Gems reported in [2014 (3) TMI 938 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held that Primarily, no distinction possible on the basis of different situations under which foreign exchange fluctuation may result. We are conscious that law permits hedging of foreign exchange fluctuation risk to an importer or an exporter. The exporter may, therefore, take steps as found commercially prudent to safeguard himself against drastic foreign exchange rate fluctuations and in the process may also limit the possibility of gain in case of favourable currency rate trends. Nevertheless, the resultant gain in foreign exchange rate would still be due to the export made by the assessee. In any case, no such facts are recorded by the Assessing Officer in any of these cases. We would, therefore, not entertain such speculative contention.
Duty drawback - Held that:- This issue will be now governed by the decision of the apex court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT reported in [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that duty drawback, rebate etc. should not be treated as adjustment (credited) to cost of purchase or manufacture of goods. - They should be treated as separate items of revenue or income and accounted for accordingly - Decided in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
Disallowance in respect of amount paid to farmers on account of damage/penalty - Held that:- As decided in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] the authority has to allow deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, wherever such examination reveals the concerned impost to be purely, compensatory in nature. Wherever such impost is found to be of a composite nature, i.e., partly of compensatory nature and partly of penal nature, the authorities are obligated to bifurcate the two components of the impost and give deduction to that component which is compensatory in nature and refuse to give deduction to that component which is penal in nature.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1373
TPA - selection of comparables - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in provision of information technology (IT) enabled services in the nature of survey programming, data collection, data analysis and business research. It is a captive contract service provider rendering IT enabled services to its associated enterprise. The assessee has an approximately 80% of its workforce as graduates for undertaking data collection activities. Further, it also employs MCA’s, BCA’s and diploma holders for undertaking data processing and survey programs. It’s data processing staff comprises only 15% of the personnel of Exevo India.
Thus with the above understanding of the nature of services provided by the assessee to its AE’s, companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final lost of comparables.
Working capital adjustment - Held that:- While comparing the margins earned by the comparable companies there is always the assessee, the difference on account of working capital employed should also be factored into. In order to improve the reliability of results, the financial data of comparable companies are required to be adjusted. The efforts stated decisions of this tribunal has held that in practice such adjustments usually include adjustments for accounts payable, accounts receivable and inventory. We accordingly allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee
Unabsorbed depreciation adjustment - Held that:- When the assessee has brought forward business losses as well as unabsorbed depreciation, the Act specifies a sequence in which these allowances shall be set off. While computing total income of an assessee, carry forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off in future years only after setting off the brought forward business losses. Further the provision is clear that carry forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off not only against income from profits and gains from business and profession, but also against income from any other head including income from other sources.
In the present case the assessee has brought forward business losses as well as unobserved depreciation. The act specifies the sequence in which these allowances can be set off. Section 72 (3) implies that, the set off of unobserved depreciation as per section 32 (2) against business income shall be given effect to only after setting off the brought forward business losses. From the calculation made by the Ld.AO, it is observed that the Ld.AO has adjusted the amount of unobserved depreciation from the business income before making adjustment for brought forward business losses. The circular relied upon by the Ld.AR is not applicable to the present case under consideration as it is applicable where the set off each to be made against the profits of a STP/EOU/SEZ unit, before the deduction under section 10 A/10 B of the Income tax Act is allowed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1372
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Calculation of tax effect on the tax part excluding surcharge and cess - Held that:- As gone through sub-section (43) of section 2 which defines ‘tax’. The perusal of the definition shows that whatever was intended to be included in tax has been mentioned therein. When the legislature has mentioned the words ‘super-tax’ and ‘fringe benefit tax’, then, it could have also mentioned the words ‘surcharge’ and ‘education cess’ as well, if there was any intention to include them in the word ‘tax’. Thus, in our view, surcharge and education cess shall not be include in word ‘tax’ for the purpose of examining of tax effect as envisaged in circular of Board dt 10th December 2015 No.21/2015. Thus, the tax effect being less than 10 lakhs, impugned appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and therefore same is hereby dismissed. Our order has no effect on the merits of this case.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
