Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 5 of the Excise Appeals Rules has no application in the instant case because a contention that the Appellant was not provider of service but was recipient of service is not 'a piece of evidence', it is a 'plea

Being aggrieved, the Department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court after observing that the Tribunal had passed the order on the basis of facts and circumstance of the case held that since the Tribunal is the

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad after observing that the Assessee obtained from its Group companies directly or by transfer of the employees, the services of expatriate employees for which the Assessee paid the salaries of the employees in India,

Assessee, a Co-operative Housing Society received a sum of Rs.39,68,000/- on account of transfer of flat and garage and credited it to 'general amenities fund' as well as 'repair fund'. This receipt of Rs.39,68,000/- has been claimed as exempted from

Controversy existed between Cooperative Housing Societies and Income Tax department regarding taxability of the amounts that societies receive from developer as compensation to repair buildings in form of corpus, rent and larger area. With the promul

The Petitioner is an Indian citizen and a practicing Advocate. He claims to be affected by the levy of Service Tax on Advocates. It is the case of the Petitioner that section 65(105) (zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act 200

The petitioner filed its return of Income declaring a total income of Rs.13.12 crores. The tax payable on the declared income was Rs.6.79 crores which was paid by way of advance tax and credit for TDS. However as there was still a shortage of tax pay

Questions of law raised were(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, without appreciating the language and provision of these Sections, more so when the expenditure was

Assessee entered into MOU on 05-08-1994 with M/s Radiant Builder for development of property. Subsequently, the assessee entered into another MOU with M/s Murali realtors on 26.12.1995 & 17.5.1996 and a Deed of confirmation was also executed on 13.11

Assessee is a proprietor of M/s Gururaj Metals in the business of supply of Ferrous and non-ferrous metals to SSIs. AO disallowed certain purchases on the ground that suppliers are not traceable. The assessee furnished ledger copy of purchases, signe