"18 April 2021" Archive

Adjudication order not valid if no valid service of show cause notice

Baldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)

Baldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from perusal of the order-in-original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have p...

Read More

Interim orders of ‘not to arrest’ or ‘no coercive steps’ cannot be passed mechanically: SC

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India)

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court) The principal issue which arises is when and where the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order either staying the further investigation in the FIR/complaint or interim order in the nature of ‘no coercive steps’ and/or not to arrest the...

Read More

Mutual Fund trading is different from redemption of MF units

Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

Ace Creative Learning Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Appellant is providing Commercial Training and Coaching Services and they have also invested in the mutual funds and have earned profit during the year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 which they have shown as under the head ‘other income’. The Dep...

Read More

University liable to Pay Service Tax on Renting of Immovable Property

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs The Joint Director(Gst Intelligence) (Madras High Court)

Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs Joint Director (GST Intelligence) (Madras High Court) The University is renting the property to other institutions and collecting rent from them. Therefore, the second respondent was justified in raising demand for the said service. However, there is no justification in levying penalty. The assessee is...

Read More

Reasonable Opportunity of being heard to dealer must prior to framing Assessment Order: HC

Sham Interiors Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

Sham Interiors Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The proviso to Section 24(3) of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 specifically requires that the dealer be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to framing of an assessment. Such reasonable opportunity, Courts have been consistently held, must include...

Read More

Rule 8D is not retrospective & applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present year, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A by invoking provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since Rule 8D is not retrospective, the same is not applicable in the present assessment year and accordingly, we hold that the assessing […]...

Read More

Purchases not become Bogus merely for non-production of Parties

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)  As per accounting standards AS-7, the purchases and working progress have to be reconciled along with architect report. The AO has not rejected the books of accounts and accepted the book profits while making the addition. The Assessing Officer’s observation that none of...

Read More

GAAR cannot be invoked merely for being a party to tax avoidance, ‘participation’ is pre-requisite: South Africa HC

ABSA Bank Limited Vs Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (High Court of South Africa)

ABSA Bank Limited Vs Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (High Court of South Africa) Introduction [1] The applicants, Absa Bank Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary Absa Towers (Pty) Ltd hereafter referred to, collectively, as Absa, seek to review two decisions of the respondent, the Commissioner, South African Revenue Service (SA...

Read More

HC dismisses Income Tax prosecution launched against D K Shivakumar

Income Tax Department Vs Sri D K Shivakumar (Karnataka High Court)

Income Tax Department Vs Sri D K Shivakumar (Karnataka High Court) The gist of the offence under section 276C(1) is the wilfull attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable or under reports of the income. What is made punishable is “attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest” and not the “actual […]...

Read More

Excise due cannot be demanded on mere presumption without any evidence

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In the order in original dated 20.11.2019 the adjudicating authority had recorded a clear finding that the only presumption for the demand was that because the maximum retail price of the goods manufactured at Una, Himachal Pradesh and those manufactured elsewhere by t...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

May 2021
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31