Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2024 November Day 15 - Friday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
November 15, 2024

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • GST registration cancellation quashed by HC due to lack of due process; matter remanded to Appellate Authority.

    The High Court set aside the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration effective July 31, 2021, on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Despite issuance of show cause notices on August 26, 2022 and December 1, 2022, the petitioner's registration had already been cancelled by that time. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of notices, and the service issue remained unclear. However, the petitioner's registration cancellation was reflected on the department's portal, indicating lack of opportunity to contest before the impugned order. Considering these factors cumulatively, the High Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeal, following due process and disposing it on merits expeditiously by December 31, 2024.

  • Registration cancelled for not filing returns; court follows previous TVL case, allows revocation with conditions.

    The High Court addressed the issue of cancellation of registration due to non-filing of statutory returns. The court relied on its previous decision in TVL. Suguna Cutpiece Center v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), where it had directed revocation of registration under similar circumstances, subject to certain conditions. Consequently, the court extended the same benefit to the petitioner in the present case. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

  • CGST refund order stayed improperly; Court strikes down revisional authority's action.

    The High Court held that the revisional authority's order placing the refund sanction order in abeyance u/s 108 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invalid. Section 54 prescribes the procedure for claiming refunds, and the proviso to Section 54(1) requires following the procedure u/s 49(6) for refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger. While Section 54 lacks explicit restrictions on refunds from the Electronic Cash Ledger, similar restrictions apply. Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to stay orders deemed illegal, improper, or prejudicial to revenue interests. However, the revisional authority's doubts about the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner were unrelated to the refund order's validity. Absent any finding rendering the refund order unsustainable, illegal, or invalid, invoking Section 108 was unjustified. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order.

  • Unlawful GST registration cancellation obstructed business rights; due process violated. Court orders fair hearing.

    Cancellation of GST registration violated petitioner's constitutional right to carry on business. Respondent should have initiated legal action for alleged fraud instead of outright cancellation, depriving petitioner from conducting business. Suspension order passed without considering petitioner's reply, rendering proceedings liable to be set aside. High Court quashed impugned proceedings, directed respondent to consider petitioner's reply and pass appropriate orders on merits to revoke suspension of GST registration in accordance with law.

  • Upholding tax provisions, Court grants opportunity to be heard.

    The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017, which was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others, where it held that in view of the amendment inserting Section 16(5), the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity and heard by the original authority, which should then proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the present petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, directing the authorities to implement the provisions after granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

  • Income Tax

  • Viability gap funding by NHAI for infrastructure projects not taxable as payment for 'work' under Sec 194C.

    The High Court held that the capital grant subsidy or viability gap funding provided by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to its Concessionaires for infrastructure projects does not constitute payment for 'work' u/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, is not subject to tax deduction at source. The key points are: The Concessionaire's primary obligation is to raise funds and implement the project, while NHAI extends financial aid through viability gap funding. Section 194C requires tax deduction on sums paid to a contractor for carrying out 'work', which implies a physical or tangible activity involving labor. The capital grant subsidy is not payment for work per se but financial support from NHAI for creating a public utility asset. The Concessionaire owns and exploits the asset during the concession period to recoup investment. The viability gap funding is not credited to the Concessionaire's account but directly to the Escrow Account, hence not attracting Section 194C(2). The High Court correctly concluded that the viability gap funding cannot be construed as payment for work undertaken by the contractor u/s 194C.

  • Limitation period for Transfer Pricing adjustment: Controversy rages on.

    Time limitation for passing an order u/s 92CA is a contentious issue. The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision in Pfizer Healthcare, but the Revenue has filed an SLP challenging it before the Supreme Court. Interpretation of Section 92CA's interplay with Section 153 regarding limitation is pending consideration by the Supreme Court. The Bombay High Court's order in PayPal Payments is also challenged before the Supreme Court. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appeals are adjourned sine die, awaiting the Supreme Court's rulings on these issues. Proceeding otherwise would necessitate cross-appeals, adding to the multiplicity.

  • Attempt to conceal undisclosed foreign assets by fabricating backdated documents alleging fiduciary role dismissed; complaint upheld.

    The petitioner challenged the summoning order and sought quashing of the complaint u/ss 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act, 2015, alleging undisclosed foreign assets. The petitioner argued that the complaint couldn't be filed before completing the assessment. The complainant/Income-Tax Department contended that the petitioner claimed association with foreign assets only in the past as a trustee, resigning from all fiduciary positions before April 2015. However, during a search on the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, it was discovered that the petitioner attempted to fabricate and backdate documents showing foreign assets held in a fiduciary capacity as trustee of Alrahma Trust, UAE, purportedly settled in 2006, and transferring trusteeship in March 2015. The complainant alleged this was a premeditated scheme to dissociate the petitioner from offshore entities/foreign assets by backdating documents to evade Black Money Act proceedings. The court held that the complainant need not produce evidence proving guilt at this initial stage, and the petitioner's objections regarding assessment are irrelevant. The court considered the petitioner's alleged fabrication of documents and overt acts towards commission of the offence. The petitioner's application to challenge the assessment order was dismissed, as an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 16 of the Black Money Act is available.

  • Royalties treated as revenue expense, fully deductible; bad debt also allowed. Capital expenditure test clarified.

    Royalty payments treated as revenue expenditure, deductible in full; capital expenditure treatment rejected. Bad debt deduction allowed u/s 28, following Supreme Court precedent in Shriram Chits case; Revenue appeal rejected. Division Bench judgment of same Court cited, clarifying expenditure to acquire intangible asset not automatically capital expenditure; enduring nature of benefit key consideration. Appellate orders deleting disallowances upheld by High Court.

  • Mandatory Reserve Fund Transfer Not Deductible for Tax Purposes, Rules Court.

    The High Court held that the amount transferred by the assessee to the Statutory Reserve Fund in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 45IC read with Section 45Q of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, is not an allowable deduction in computing the assessable income under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision aligns with the Court's earlier ruling for the same assessee in other assessment years. The Court concluded that the reserve fund represents retained profits for business use and does not qualify as a deductible expense under regular income computation or book profit computation u/s 115JB. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were upheld, and the issue was decided in favor of the revenue department.

  • Investing sale proceeds in mutual funds before bonds still qualifies for capital gains tax exemption.

    The case deals with the applicability of Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, which provides exemption from capital gains tax if the gains are invested in specified bonds within the prescribed time limit. The key points are: The assessee received advances from purchasers for a property sale and initially invested these advances in mutual funds. Subsequently, the maturity proceeds from the mutual funds were used to invest in bonds u/s 54EC. The Revenue contended that the investment in bonds should be made directly from the sale proceeds and not from funds derived from other sources like mutual funds. The Tribunal held that the source of investment in bonds was clearly traceable to the advances received from purchasers, establishing a direct nexus. The mere routing of funds through mutual funds does not negate the claim u/s 54EC, as no other funds were available with the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Bhupendra Kumar Bhaumik's case and the Supreme Court's ratio in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim. The provisions of Section 54EC were interpreted in line with the erstwhile Section 54E, as the scheme of capital gains exemption envisaged a seamless continuation. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that there was no error in the Assessing Officer's order warranting intervention u/s.

  • Sale value of old rubber trees to be included in book profit calculation.

    The crux pertains to the inclusion of sale value of old rubber trees in computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Kerala High Court had previously ruled against the assessee in its own case for prior years, holding that the sale value should be included while computing book profit. Although the assessee challenged this before the Supreme Court, the High Court's decision remains binding until set aside. Consequently, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 154 to rectify the mistake of non-inclusion, as non-consideration of judicial precedents constitutes a valid ground for rectification u/s 154. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's action, rendering other grounds raised by the assessee redundant.

  • Debtors' bad loans written off rightfully; tax deduction allowed.

    Assessee wrote off provision for bad and doubtful debts by debiting profit and loss account and reducing corresponding amount from loans and advances to debtors in balance sheet. CIT(A) erred in holding assessee failed to demonstrate amounts were written off as irrecoverable. Records show amounts were written off by deducting them in P&L account and set off properly recorded in balance sheet. As per Supreme Court ruling in Vijaya Bank case, to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii), it's not necessary to close individual debtor accounts; writing off by debiting P&L and reducing corresponding asset side entry suffices. Hence, assessee is eligible for deduction and appeal allowed.

  • Society promoting hydrocarbon industry's interests ruled non-commercial.

    The assessee society's activities were initially considered commercial by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under the second proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the society's primary objective was to secure and promote the business interests of its members, which does not necessarily imply a commercial nature. The ITAT observed that the society was formed as an initiative of the Government of India to bring stakeholders together, ultimately benefiting consumers. Despite including private sector members, the society's role as a facilitator for the hydrocarbon industry does not make its activities commercial. The expenditure statements did not indicate any funds utilized for procuring business for members or promoting their financial interests. The ITAT concluded that the Revisional Authority's order lacked legal basis and was based on conjectures beyond the scope of Section 263, ruling in favor of the assessee.

  • Advertisement business thin margins dispute: ITAT guided by equity deems 8% of gross receipts as fair income estimation.

    Income estimation based on percentage of gross receipts - CIT(A) applied 12.5% net profit on gross receipts, assessee claimed thin margins in advertisement business. ITAT held some guesswork inevitable without financial data. CIT(A) lacked material for 12.5%, assessee failed to substantiate lower 1.5-2% claim. Section 44AD deems 8% of turnover as business income for eligible assessees based on empirical data. Guided by equity, ITAT considered 8% of gross receipts fair estimation, modifying CIT(A)'s 12.5% to 8%. Assessee's appeal partly allowed.

  • Indian taxpayer wins case against denial of tax treaty benefits due to procedural delay in filing Form-67.

    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that denial of tax relief u/s 90/90A solely due to procedural delay in filing Form-67 is unjustified. Filing of Form-67 is a procedural formality and cannot be the basis for denying relief to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred by merely stating disagreement with a binding superior court judgment without assigning any reasons, which is legally unjustifiable. An inferior court differing from a superior court's judgment must discuss and provide reasons for the divergence. The Assessing Officer should not have denied relief u/s 90 merely for the delay in filing Form-67. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

  • Income Tax Tribunal Allows Unsecured Loans & Interest Deduction After Assessee Provides Sufficient Evidence.

    The Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions u/s 68 for unsecured loans and disallowing interest component. The assessee demonstrated repayment of unsecured loans through bank statements and submitted relevant evidence, including audited financial statements, confirmations from lenders, and bank statements filed u/s 133(6). The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries and relied solely on a third party's unreliable statement, ignoring the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee satisfied the requirements of Section 68 by substantiating the loan transactions, which were repaid through banking channels. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions for unsecured loans and disallowance of interest, deciding in favor of the assessee.

  • Jeweler's cash sales spike during festive season justified post-demonetization.

    The assessee, engaged in trading gold, silver, and diamond jewelry, witnessed a substantial increase in cash sales during October and the first week of November 2016 due to Dussehra and Diwali festivals. After demonetization on November 8, 2016, jewelers opened shutters and made substantial sales from 8:30 PM to 12:00 AM. The assessee filed purchase and sale registers, stock summary, returns, and explained the cash deposit, discharging the onus of proving genuineness. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the increase in cash sales was due to festival occasions, and people chose to purchase jewelry with cash. Consequently, the addition u/s 69A was unjustified, and the decision favored the assessee.

  • Reopening of tax assessment quashed due to procedural lapses - lax verification, lack of application of mind by tax officers.

    Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was invalid due to procedural irregularities. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings without verifying information and the Commissioner of Income Tax granted approval without applying mind. Approval by Commissioner was without recording independent satisfaction, rendering reopening unsustainable. Consequently, notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings were quashed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erroneously passed order regarding Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme despite assessee not applying for immunity, hence order quashed. The Assessing Officer made addition without invoking any provision of law or specifying head of income, violating principles of natural justice by denying assessee opportunity to defend. Supreme Court rulings mandate providing reasonable notice of charges and provisions violated. Absence of such notice vitiated proceedings. Therefore, addition made by authorities was deleted and appeal allowed.

  • Customs

  • Delayed adjudication of tax notices breaches fair procedure, warrants quashing for violating natural justice principles.

    Inordinate delay in adjudication of show cause notice by revenue authorities constitutes breach of fair procedure and violates principles of natural justice, causing prejudice to petitioners. Adjudicating authorities are obligated to adjudicate within reasonable time, failure of which warrants quashing of delayed adjudications lacking compelling justification. Unreasonable delay renders it impossible for petitioners to plan business or account for contingent liabilities, thereby breaching procedural fairness mandated in fiscal matters. Precedents establish that such egregious delays without cogent explanations necessitate quashing of impugned adjudications by High Court to uphold principles of natural justice.

  • Seized gold ornaments to be released for non-compliance with notice requirement before confiscation.

    The High Court held that seized gold ornaments must be returned forthwith as the Revenue failed to comply with Section 124 of the Act, which requires issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation. The petition was allowed, directing the Revenue to release the seized item to the petitioner immediately. The petitioner expressed desire to re-export the item, which shall be considered upon application in accordance with law.

  • Tax dept appeals rejected due to duty amount below threshold.

    The appeals filed by the department were dismissed as the duty amount involved in each appeal was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC. The circular mandates that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT if the duty amount is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, and if already filed, the same shall be withdrawn. Consequently, the CESTAT dismissed all 19 appeals, leaving the question of law, if any, open, considering the present appeals as not maintainable in view of the Board's instructions.

  • Allowing destruction of obsolete raw materials for export units after intimation to customs.

    The appellants imported goods and procured goods from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under exemption notifications, allowing import and procurement of raw materials and components for export production. Due to technological changes, some imported raw materials and components became obsolete and unfit for manufacturing. The notification was amended, permitting destruction of raw materials under intimation to customs. Although the period of dispute predated the amendment, a harmonious reading of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and the customs notification implied destruction of obsolete raw materials was allowed after intimation to customs if destroyed within the unit, and with permission if destroyed outside. Such permission was granted previously. Technological advancements necessitate provisions for destruction of obsolete goods. The FTP allowed destruction, but the notification lacked this provision until amended. Precedent Tribunal decisions support allowing destruction, and the appeals are allowed.

  • Benami Property

  • Crackdown on employee's undisclosed cash properties worth Rs. 1.4 crore.

    Issue of benami property transactions and the appellant's failure to prove the source of income for acquiring properties worth Rs. 1,41,37,500/-. The Initiating Officer alleged that the appellant, an employee with a meagre salary, acquired benami properties. The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant could not produce documents to substantiate the source of income for purchasing the properties. The appellant tried to rely on an income tax assessment order, but the Tribunal held that it cannot be used for adjudication under the Benami Transactions Act. The Adjudicating Authority's detailed findings revealed the benami nature of the properties acquired largely in cash without disclosing the source. The appellant failed to submit material proving the source of income before the authorities. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no favorable material for the appellant, and rejected the reliance on the Supreme Court's recalled judgment in Ganpati Dealcom case.

  • Benami property transaction loophole exposed, gold & silver attachment upheld.

    The appeal challenges the attachment order of gold and silver articles from lockers, questioning the identification of beneficial locker holders under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The court held that the conduct of the parties, particularly the Safe Vault Private Limited (SVPL), which failed to disclose the true ownership and delayed changing the name despite requests, speaks for itself. The SVPL's excuse of a bona fide mistake was unacceptable, and they were equally responsible for the benami transaction by not adhering to KYC norms. The appellant failed to disclose the source of acquisition of gold and silver, and the SVPL and appellant were hand in glove to mislead the respondent. The court found no violation of Section 24(1) of the Act, as notice was given to Shiv Daga, and the appellant had ample opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  • Agricultural land attached due to alleged benami transaction, but beneficial owner unidentified.

    The case pertains to the prohibition of benami property transactions and the applicability of amended provisions introduced by the Amending Act of 2016 to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The key points are: The Initiating Officer (I.O.) attached an agricultural land, alleging it to be a benami transaction, but could not identify the beneficial owner. The Adjudicating Authority treated the transaction as falling u/s 2(9A) of the amended Act, despite it being prior to the 2016 amendment. The Supreme Court has clarified that the amended provisions have prospective application. Transactions prior to November 1, 2016, not covered by Section 2(9A) of the amended Act, are governed by the judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. An exception may apply if the case falls u/s 2(9A) of the amended definition, as per the Appellate Tribunal's judgment in M/s. Prism Scan Express Pvt. Ltd.

  • IBC

  • Property Possession During Insolvency Restricted: Court Reaffirms Landlord's Claims Barred Despite RP's Consent.

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to examine and decide the issues in a comprehensive manner, including the application of the appellant in I.A. No. 1412 of 2023, preferably within four weeks. The NCLAT held that there is an absolute bar on recovery of any property occupied or possessed by the Corporate Debtor u/s 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AA had passed a non-speaking order merely based on the consent of the Resolution Professional (RP) to release the property, without examining the maintainability of such applications by the owner/lessor in view of Section 14(1)(d). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not appear to have taken a final decision with proper voting regarding the vacation of the registered office. The RP's decision to release the property was his own and not confirmed by the CoC. The NCLAT found that the AA should have first examined whether it is possible to allow such applications in view of the express provisions of Section 14(1)(d), even if supported by the CoC. The appeal was allowed.

  • Indian Laws

  • Dishonored cheques - Failure to prove given as blank security for loan.

    The petitioner contended that the dishonored cheques were not issued against any legally enforceable debt, claiming they were given as blank security cheques to one Vinod Tiwari for a loan. However, the petitioner failed to substantiate this claim through evidence or cross-examination of the respondent. Merely reiterating contentions without adducing material to show the loan existed with Vinod Tiwari was insufficient to dislodge the presumptions raised u/ss 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, as the petitioner failed to rebut the presumptions, and dismissed the petition, exercising restraint from reappreciating evidence unless the order was wholly unreasonable or untenable.

  • Company Official's Liability for Bounced Checks: Resignation Matters, Mere Designation Doesn't.

    Interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with vicarious liability for offenses committed by companies u/s 138 (dishonor of cheques). The key points are: Section 141 is a penal provision that must be strictly construed. Liability under this section depends on the role played by the person in the company's affairs, not merely their designation. To attract liability, the person must have been in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct at the time of the offense's commission. Merely being a director or having some association with the company is insufficient. The complaint must specify the accused's role and how they were responsible for the company's conduct. In this case, the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant events (issuance, dishonor, and notice of dishonor of cheque) occurred. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable u/s 141 as they were not in charge or responsible for the company's conduct during the commission of the offense.

  • Tamil Nadu medical college project faces forum hurdle: Court slams petitioner for 'forum shopping' after withdrawing local pleas.

    Construction of buildings for a proposed medical college located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu - cause of action arises in Tamil Nadu - forum shopping by petitioner after withdrawing petitions from appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu - both parties and properties situated in Tamil Nadu - previous orders by District Court Nagercoil and Madras High Court pertaining to dispute - no justification for invoking jurisdiction of Delhi High Court when Tamil Nadu courts already seized of matter - coordinate bench ruling on jurisdiction of High Courts over pan-India Tribunals/authorities - present petitions dismissed solely on ground of territorial jurisdiction with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.

  • Project completed before RERA enacted, no retrospective jurisdiction for completed projects.

    The RERA lacks jurisdiction over projects completed before its enactment. The project obtained Occupation/Completion Certificate prior to RERA's commencement, rendering the complaint inadmissible. Entertaining such complaints would grant retrospective effect to RERA, contrary to legislative intent. No provision allows pursuit of remedies under RERA for completed projects previously addressed under Consumer Protection Act. Authorities correctly dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, as the project predated RERA's enactment. Forum shopping by withdrawing from prior proceedings is impermissible.

  • SEBI

  • Exec directors can't evade liability by claiming ignorance of daily ops or low pay. Courts uphold trial against board member.

    An executive director, being a member of the board and responsible for overall management, cannot evade liability merely by claiming lack of involvement in day-to-day affairs or receiving nominal salary. The court found a prima facie case against the petitioner, an executive director during the alleged offense period. Interfering at this stage would be an abuse of process. The trial court rightly applied the law in rejecting the discharge plea. With the trial underway and evidence being recorded, the HC declined to interfere in the ongoing proceedings against the executive director.

  • Service Tax

  • Brewery license transfer: Deemed sale, not service tax.

    The CESTAT held that a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution had occurred when the appellant granted the right to use the brewery license to Skol/Sab Miller through the License Agreement. The consideration received by the appellant under the License Agreement cannot be subjected to service tax or clubbed with the consideration under the Lease Deed for "renting of immovable property" service. The Commissioner's findings to the contrary were set aside. The License Agreement and Lease Deed were separate documents, and merely because the Lease Deed mentioned procuring an endorsement/sub-license, it did not make the License Agreement an integral part of the Lease Deed. The License Agreement gave complete freedom to Skol/Sab Miller to operate the brewery without hindrance. The Commissioner's reasoning that no "sale" took place due to restrictions was incorrect, as a "deemed sale" under Article 366(29A)(d) is distinct from a regular "sale." Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notices was set aside.


Notifications


Circulars / Instructions / Orders


News


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2024 (11) TMI 661
  • 2024 (11) TMI 660
  • 2024 (11) TMI 659
  • 2024 (11) TMI 658
  • 2024 (11) TMI 657
  • 2024 (11) TMI 656
  • 2024 (11) TMI 655
  • Income Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 654
  • 2024 (11) TMI 653
  • 2024 (11) TMI 652
  • 2024 (11) TMI 651
  • 2024 (11) TMI 650
  • 2024 (11) TMI 649
  • 2024 (11) TMI 648
  • 2024 (11) TMI 647
  • 2024 (11) TMI 646
  • 2024 (11) TMI 645
  • 2024 (11) TMI 644
  • 2024 (11) TMI 643
  • 2024 (11) TMI 642
  • 2024 (11) TMI 641
  • 2024 (11) TMI 640
  • 2024 (11) TMI 639
  • 2024 (11) TMI 638
  • 2024 (11) TMI 637
  • 2024 (11) TMI 636
  • 2024 (11) TMI 635
  • 2024 (11) TMI 634
  • 2024 (11) TMI 633
  • 2024 (11) TMI 632
  • 2024 (11) TMI 631
  • 2024 (11) TMI 630
  • 2024 (11) TMI 629
  • 2024 (11) TMI 628
  • 2024 (11) TMI 627
  • 2024 (11) TMI 626
  • Benami Property

  • 2024 (11) TMI 625
  • 2024 (11) TMI 624
  • 2024 (11) TMI 623
  • Customs

  • 2024 (11) TMI 622
  • 2024 (11) TMI 621
  • 2024 (11) TMI 620
  • 2024 (11) TMI 619
  • 2024 (11) TMI 618
  • Securities / SEBI

  • 2024 (11) TMI 617
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2024 (11) TMI 616
  • Service Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 615
  • 2024 (11) TMI 614
  • 2024 (11) TMI 613
  • Central Excise

  • 2024 (11) TMI 612
  • 2024 (11) TMI 611
  • 2024 (11) TMI 610
  • 2024 (11) TMI 609
  • 2024 (11) TMI 608
  • 2024 (11) TMI 607
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2024 (11) TMI 606
  • Indian Laws

  • 2024 (11) TMI 605
  • 2024 (11) TMI 604
  • 2024 (11) TMI 603
  • 2024 (11) TMI 602
  • 2024 (11) TMI 601
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates