Jurisprudentiol–Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Income Tax

Housing Project comprising of residential units and commercial establishments- deduction under section 80IB (10) admissible; limit on commercial use by amendment of 2005 not retrospective – ITAT Sp Bench

THIS landmark decision of the Special Bench was delivered on 6.4.2009 and we bring it to you tomorrow.

Central Excise

COD word is final - Once the Committee of Disputes declines to give permission to pursue appeal before the CESTAT, there is no question of agitating the matter: Tribunal

CAN an appeal be maintainable before the CESTAT even after COD refused permission? ‘NO' says Tribunal. But doesn't the PSU know that it cannot pursue the appeal without COD clearance?

Valuation - even if there is no flow back of any money, the fact that the price is not sole consideration is sufficient for rejecting the transaction value: CESTAT by Majority

AGREED price is not the sole consideration and is influenced by the factor that free distribution is to be done by the appellants themselves through its medical representatives and whole planning thereof is to be done by the appellants. Thus, the buyer had been absolved of all the expenses incurred on the marketing and distribution of physician samples and the expenses to this effect have been incurred by the appellants themselves and therefore the agreed price is influenced by the factor that the distribution expenses have been taken over by the appellants themselves. Therefore even if there is no flow back of any money, the fact that the price is not sole consideration is sufficient for rejecting the transaction value.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements