Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 72 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs ... vs M/S Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. 2 ... on 17 May, 2018

Rituraj Steel Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 February, 2026

The issue of commercial expediency of advances to related parties and or the sum advanced to related parties are sourced from non-interest bearing fund available to the assessee needs categorical finding by the first appellate authority/Addl. CIT(A). Before parting out, we would like to mention that the issue of surplus fund available with the assessee given to its related parties have been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases; such as, East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. 224 ITR 627 (SC), Munjal Sales Corporation 298 ITR 298 (SC), South Indian Bank Ltd. 438 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) 3 ITA No.697/RPR/2025 Rituraj Steel Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT(A), Bilaspur has approved the mixed fund theory in as much as it has been also held that no disallowance of the interest could be made when non-interest bearing fund should be more than the investment made in tax free securities.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Bharat Shukla vs Bhopal on 2 January, 2019

9. Per contra, the perusal of the statement of Shri Bharat Shukla makes it apparently clear that there seems some lacuna in the invoice however no finished goods has been cleared from his factory without making payment of the duty. He has also stated that whatever lacuna in the invoice was brought to his notice, the deficiency thereof has already been made good. He has also reflected his cooperation to the fact that he is still ready to make further payment if any is required. Such acknowledgement to my opinion cannot be fastened with the grave allegations of intentional malafide removal of the finished goods to cause loss to the Revenue Exchequer. As already said above that it was for the Department to prove by the cogent corroborative evidence, mere acceptance of excess at the time of visit of the officers by itself cannot be held to be a conclusive proof. Also the mere fact that excess finished goods found in the factory by itself cannot be held to be a ground to attribute any evidence to the asessesse so as to lead to the conclusion of malafide. The law stands settled as of now that the goods cannot be confiscated on the mere conclusion of non entry of the goods in the statutory documents unless there is evidence that such stock was not entered in RG-I Register either deliberately or on the malafide intention to remove the same clandestinely. I draw my 10 E/51309 & 50891/2018 [SM] support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Salesar Steel and Power Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Bilaspur 2016 (9) TMI 890.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 31 May, 2019

53. This argument is based on the Latin maxim expression unius est exclusion alterius. This maxim has been referred to in a number of judgments of this Court in which it has been described as a "useful servant but a dangerous master". (See for example CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. [CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., (1972) 2 SCC 560] , SCC at para 30.)
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 56 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Gujarat Electricity Regulatory ... on 9 November, 2023

192. It is in this context that the Supreme Court held that, what emerged from the record was that, as far as M/s Haldyn was concerned, it was owned by the Shetty Group and the Mehta Group who subscribed to 52% and 48% shares respectively in the said company; on the other hand, M/s Tarvin, one of the purchasers, was wholly owned by the Shetty Group, and the other three firms were wholly owned by Mehta Group; its earlier judgment in CCE v. ITEC (P) Ltd. [CCE v. ITEC (P) Ltd., (2002) 7 SCC
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 125 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M/S Rites Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2024

In CCE v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [CCE v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2010) 13 SCC 42] , this Court held that working of the CoD (Committee on Disputes) had failed as numerous difficulties had been experienced by the CoD which were expressed in the Cabinet Secretary's Letter dated 9-3- 2010. This Court observed: (SCC p. 43, paras 4-5) "4. In our experience, the working of the Committee on Disputes (CoD) has failed. Numerous difficulties are experienced by CoD which are expressed in the Letter of the Cabinet Secretary, dated 9-3-2010. Apart from the said letter, we find in numerous matters concerning public sector companies that different views are expressed by CoD which results not only in delay in filing of matters but also results into further litigation.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

M/S. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Ltd vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opp. ... on 14 May, 2024

In Jindal Steel (supra), this Court, considering the question of maintainability of writ petition, held that against any decision taken by Commissioner of Central Excise as adjudicating authority, appeal lies to appellate tribunal and accordingly dismissed the writ petition with a direction to file appeal before appellate tribunal by making pre deposit of 5% of demand.
Orissa High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next