Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The Assessee is engaged in manufacture of wooden doors, frames, furniture etc. The Assessee has paid usance charges of Rs.18,99,772/- on import purchase. The AO was of the view that the usance charges incurred by the assessee is the income arising to

The assessee, an individual, had received sums aggregating to Rs. 2,91,723 from Bharati Airtel Limited and Idea Cellular Limited, towards renting out its terrace for the use by these companies as places where as, mobile communication service provider

It was found that there were substantial grounds for taking lenient view as it indicates that Appellate could not have any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service tax and even Adjudicating Authority waived the penalty under Section 76 by taki

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relied upon its own decision in the case of Arvind Ltd. Vs. CCE [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 91/46 GST 566 (Ahd. - CESTAT)] and held that where two Exemption Notifications, one granting absolute unconditional exemption and oth

One common issue in all the assessment years is the challenge to the correctness of ALP adjustment made to the billing for contract manufacturing by the assessee, to its associated enterprises based abroad. The question is whether CPM, with entrepren

During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee company had sold a plot of land as per sale-deed dated 16.09.2004. The sale price on which capital gain hasbeen worked out was taken at Rs.2,57,76,000/- (Rs.2,62,08,000 le

On appeal being filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal by the Revenue, the same was rejected. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh where the Hon’ble High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the law

The Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the appeal in favour of the Appellant and held that the no Customs duty is leviable on quantity of burning loss as it is neither cleared out of the custom bonded warehouse for home consumption nor otherwise disposed of, b

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