Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
