Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Hero Cycles Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 22 March, 2013

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs M/S Majestic Auto Limited on 22 May, 2013

The return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act'). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,04,632/- as a value of tools and spares for one month since such stock was not reflected in the closing stock of the previous year. However, in appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the basis adopted by the Assessing Officer for making the addition is justified but the addition need to be reduced to the stock of 15 days instead of one month and thus, the addition was Kumar Vimal ordered to remain at 50% of Rs.9,04,632/-. However, in further appeal, the learned 2013.05.31 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh I.T.A. No.116 of 2004 -2- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon its earlier order dated 21.8.2002 in respect of assessment year 1991-92 and order dated 23.11.2002 in respect of assessment year 1989-90 titled 'M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana Vs. ACIT, Ludhiana'.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Auto Ignition Ltd vs Delhi-Iv on 30 April, 2025

 M/s. Hero Cycles Limited, Hero Ecotech Ltd. (New Cycle Division) and Hero Exports v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, 2024 (2) TMI 11-CESTAT Chandigarh  Norris Medicines Ltd and Wintac Limited v. C.C.E. & S.T. - Surat-ll, 2023 (5) TMI 383-CESTAT Ahmedabad 4 E/52617/2014  Kakateeya Fabs (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 350 (Tri. - Del.) 4.1 She further submits that presence of intention to evade tax is the pre-requisite for imposition of penalty under Rule 26(1), whereas, the Department has failed to show any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellant for evasion of tax. She further submits that the main appellant who was a job worker has settled the issue of demand of duty along with interest and penalty under SVLDRS and his appeal no. E/52616/2014 filed against the impugned order has been dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by this bench of the Tribunal. 4.2 She further submits that once the main assessee has settled the issue under the scheme, penalty cannot be imposed on co-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1