Seeks to further amend notification No. 50/2022-Customs, dated 30th June, 2017 vide Notification No. 50/2022-Customs | Dated: 27th September, 2022. Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department Of Revenue) New Delhi, Notification No. 50/2022-Customs | Dated: 27th September, 2022 G.S.R. 730(E).— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the […]
Considering the fact that the prosecution could not point out as to how much amount is misappropriated under the Input Tax Credit and that material part of investigation is not done, more particularly, when the GST Officer has not lodged any complaint or FIR against the applicant for any misappropriation of the Government funds or State Exchequer.
Procedural infirmities, for a shorter or longer time, does not in any way supplant service tax exemption accorded to impugned supply of services to units in SEZ
Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs North Block, New Delhi-110 001 Tel. : +91-11-23092849, Fax : +91-11-23092890 E-mail : vivekjohri.irs@gov.in Vivek Johri Chairman DO No. 43/CH(IC)/2022 | Dated: 27th September, 2022 Dear Colleague, As an organization, we have had a close association with Salt. The collection […]
Smt. Adwitiya Chakrabarti Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court) This PIL petition is filed by a law graduate in public interest with prayers to seek issuance of show cause to the respondents as to why a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued declaring that possession of all exotic […]
Asha Devi Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, limited scrutiny was to be done for verification of cash deposits and the source of cash deposits from the safe custody account is not examined by the AO by calling for relevant details from the assessee. The AO ought to have examined the same to […]
Income from supply of CAS and middleware products to indian customers, does not fall under ‘royalty’ as defined under Section 9(l)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3) of India- Swiss DTAA.
CESTAT held that ‘Explanation’ added to definition of ‘exempted service’ would widen the scope of the provision and will have prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively.
