Beterman Engineering Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant has all along taken the view that transport service is not taxable service as it was not provided by the goods transport agency, but by goods transport operator and/or individual truck owners namely an individual either owning or operating. This plea has […]
Valecha Investments Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) HC held that mere default in payment of tax, unless such default arises out of circumstances which has the effect of assessee defeating payment, the expression ‘willful attempt’ cannot be imported to mean failure to pay tax. It is also held in paragraph 10 that mere […]
Metadin Mali Vs C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on […]
Petitioner, wishing to rectify the error, had attempted to submit an application for amendment of the registration certificate. However, while filling the application Online, the Accountant had selected ‘cancellation’ from the drop down menu instead of ‘modification’. It is thus that the impugned order has come to be passed cancelling the registration with effect from 01.05.2020.
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is observed that reply filed by the petitioner to the notice has not been taken into consideration especially in view of the fact that such reply was filed on 31.03.2022 and on the same day the impugned order came to be passed on 10.41 p.m. […]
Pramod Kumar Vs ACIT (Telangana High Court) HC is of the view that present is not a fit case to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold. Reasons have been assigned by the assessing officer as to why the explanation given by the petitioner could not be accepted. Certainly, such reasons given have a nexus […]
Jubilant Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The disallowance of depreciation in quantum proceedings in A.Y.2016-17 has also resulted in corresponding enhancement of deduction under section 80IAB by the equal amount. The AO has also allowed the enhanced deduction in the quantum and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by such claim. It […]
Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
C.S.T. Delhi Vs Sojitz Corporation (Supreme Court of India) It is not in dispute that the service tax was sought to be levied for the transaction which has taken place outside India for the period between November, 1999 and March, 2002. The show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2005. It is not in dispute that […]
Raja Ram Dalmia Vs PCIT (Calcutta High Court) High Court held that department has to first initiate proceedings against the defaulting private limited company and upon failure in their attempt to recover the tax dues power under section 179 of the Act could have been invoked. On facts it is clear that no such attempt […]
